Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.
Parliament can change the PM if its not happy with the veto.
How can it if it is prorogued minutes after assent is refused?
If black rod came to summon the Commons minutes after assent is refused I think Speaker Bercow would shout out to lock the doors prior to the debate being concluded and refuse the summons. That's just not going to happen.
No one could possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.
The MPs are summoned first. They go into the House of Lords. Then royal assent is granted (or not). Then parliament is prorogued.
Mr. Thompson, the PM does not have a veto right over the entire Palace of Westminster. He isn't a Roman consul. The Commons and Lords are not mere debating chambers awaiting the nod of approval of the Glorious Prime Minister for their words to be given meaning, or frustrated by the shaken head of denial.
The PM should or royal assent is meaningless.
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.
The Queen exercises her executive functions on the advice of the Prime Minister. This is a legislative issue though. Also the POTUS is both Head of State and Head of Government. As you know the positions are split in our constitution
No, please just read it. The Commons have already been summoned to the Lords. They aren't sitting any more. There is royal assent (or not), then a speech, and then parliament is prorogued. There is no opportunity for an "urgent debate" in the House of Commons.
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?
Those two statements aren't contradictory.
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.
I've just told you - the Commons will already have been summoned to the Lords. They will already be in the Lords. They will not be sitting any more.
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?
Are they teleported? Is there some magic in the House of Commons I wasn't aware of?
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".
I keep asking you to read the information I posted. Please do so, and stop wasting everybody's time.
I did read it. At the time of the summons MPs will be physically sat in the Commons.
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/
Phillip HMQ wont permit black rod or anyone else associated with her to be involved in a low budget made for TV movie
As a Remainer I would have been disgusted if say the EU ref had been to stay and then the government tried to bring in the Euro by advising the Queen to refuse her consent to a Bill blocking that .
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've no idea how thing will play out but I'm convinced that Boris doesn't want No Deal.
I would really love a Boris GE win just to see the reaction of the Baker-Francois gang when they discover they've been the useful idiots for the ambition of Boris.
No, please just read it. The Commons have already been summoned to the Lords. They aren't sitting any more. There is royal assent (or not), then a speech, and then parliament is prorogued. There is no opportunity for an "urgent debate" in the House of Commons.
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?
Those two statements aren't contradictory.
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.
I've just told you - the Commons will already have been summoned to the Lords. They will already be in the Lords. They will not be sitting any more.
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?
Are they teleported? Is there some magic in the House of Commons I wasn't aware of?
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".
I keep asking you to read the information I posted. Please do so, and stop wasting everybody's time.
I did read it. At the time of the summons MPs will be physically sat in the Commons.
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/
That's before assent is refused/accepted to the bills that are still outstanding.
Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.
Parliament can change the PM if its not happy with the veto.
How can it if it is prorogued minutes after assent is refused?
If black rod came to summon the Commons minutes after assent is refused I think Speaker Bercow would shout out to lock the doors prior to the debate being concluded and refuse the summons. That's just not going to happen.
If I remember previous prorogation ceremonies, the house of commons are standing inside the Lords as the commission is read and assent to acts is given. They'd have to run back in the commons and do god knows what to somehow prevent the parliament being prorogued. After the speech, the speaker doesn't resume his seat in his normal chair because the session is over.
Why are the Commons standing inside the Lords? They're not normally are they. You've skipped some steps. How do you think they will get the MPs from the Commons to the Lords?
I posted it once for you. Now read it: 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. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentwork/offices-and-ceremonies/overview/prorogation1/prorogation/
No, please just read it. The Commons have already been summoned to the Lords. They aren't sitting any more. There is royal assent (or not), then a speech, and then parliament is prorogued. There is no opportunity for an "urgent debate" in the House of Commons.
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?
Those two statements aren't contradictory.
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.
I've just told you - the Commons will already have been summoned to the Lords. They will already be in the Lords. They will not be sitting any more.
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?
Are they teleported? Is there some magic in the House of Commons I wasn't aware of?
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".
I keep asking you to read the information I posted. Please do so, and stop wasting everybody's time.
I did read it. At the time of the summons MPs will be physically sat in the Commons.
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/
Phillip HMQ wont permit black rod or anyone else associated with her to be involved in a low budget made for TV movie
Have we got to the bit in the story where Bercow shouts smoke me a kipper I'll be back for breakfast and suicide charges the grenadiers guards sent to impose HMQs will?
Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.
Parliament can change the PM if its not happy with the veto.
How can it if it is prorogued minutes after assent is refused?
If black rod came to summon the Commons minutes after assent is refused I think Speaker Bercow would shout out to lock the doors prior to the debate being concluded and refuse the summons. That's just not going to happen.
No one could possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.
The MPs are summoned first. They go into the House of Lords. Then royal assent is granted (or not). Then parliament is prorogued.
So, let us assume that when the list of Bills to be assented to is read out one isn't there. There's time enough for the Speaker, as representative of the House of Commons to turn round and return to the Commons. Probably lock the doors. Could/would Assent be given to anything in those circumstances? The Soveriegn is no longer with both Houses. And what sort of deep doo-doo would that land us in?
This should be very simple for everyone. Our Parliament has passed a law. Whether we like it or not, it is the law. If you depart from that statement you’re saying you no longer believe in the rule of law.
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.
I'm almost tempted to agree with you, but obeyance of the law isn't automatic. If Parliament passed a law mandating the slaughter of the firstborn, to disobey that law would be an act of civil disobedience and arguably a moral duty.
In demanding an extension while refusing an election, parliament has deliberately acted so as to frustrate the result of the 2016 referendum and as scuch is a direct attack on democracy. For the government of the day to disobey such a law is arguably a moral duty. And if Parliament don't like it, they can always call an election.
This should be very simple for everyone. Our Parliament has passed a law. Whether we like it or not, it is the law. If you depart from that statement you’re saying you no longer believe in the rule of law.
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 Boris is unable to accept the law he should resign as PM but if he remains as PM he should accept the law.
Brexit is in danger of poisoning everything unless Bozo sees sense .
Remainers and Leavers can argue about Brexit , fair enough but for a PM to ignore a law and try and gain public support for that action is reprehensible .
I did read it. At the time of the summons MPs will be physically sat in the Commons.
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/
That's before assent is refused/accepted to the bills that are still outstanding.
Yes and considering refusing assent is not just being discussed as a possibility now, but was discussed as a possibility in March too, MPs will demand assent prior to the ceremony commencing so it is not still outstanding.
Similarly while HMQ might agree to refuse assent on the advice of her ministers - she certainly won't be involved with doing so during the formal prorogation ceremony.
If Boris advices HMQ to refuse assent and she agrees I think she would rightly insist that occur prior to the prorogation ceremony.
Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.
Parliament can change the PM if its not happy with the veto.
How can it if it is prorogued minutes after assent is refused?
If black rod came to summon the Commons minutes after assent is refused I think Speaker Bercow would shout out to lock the doors prior to the debate being concluded and refuse the summons. That's just not going to happen.
No one could possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.
The MPs are summoned first. They go into the House of Lords. Then royal assent is granted (or not). Then parliament is prorogued.
So, let us assume that when the list of Bills to be assented to is read out one isn't there. There's time enough for the Speaker, as representative of the House of Commons to turn round and return to the Commons. Probably lock the doors. Could/would Assent be given to anything in those circumstances? The Soveriegn is no longer with both Houses. And what sort of deep doo-doo would that land us in?
None of the bizarre scenarios being discussed will ever come to pass. I mean we are through the looking glass if we are discussing Bercow barricading himself in the commons. It's the end of sodding days if we get there!
A more intelligent way of getting around the problem might be to use a little lateral thinking to prevent the EU offering an extension in the first place.
I.e. Boris requests an extension, and makes it clear that if it is granted the UK will exercise every single legal right and veto it possesses, on every single part of the EU's business it can affect, every single day, to bring the EU apparatus grinding to a halt.
Yes Stewart you did. You betrayed your party and country and colluded with the enemy before doing so.
The EU is not an enemy. Nearly all of its member states are NATO allies. They are not, and are not threatening, to violently harm anyone here. Dial it down.
Wouldnt be surprised if this isnt seen on Monday.....
Nothing referred to ever got as far as passing all it's stages though. Or have I misread.
There appears to be Consent, which is at an earlier stage, and Assent which is after the Bill has passed both Houses.
Bercow apparently overrode the need for Consent. Surprised that wasn't challenged in the courts after reading that Guardian article.
One assumes that the Monarch could over-rule the Speaker, if the Monarch considered their powers were being effectively usurped by a ruling of that Speaker?
Not that I expect HM the Q to get in the middle of next week's fiasco.
Yes Stewart you did. You betrayed your party and country and colluded with the enemy before doing so.
The EU is not an enemy. Nearly all of its member states are NATO allies. They are not, and are not threatening, to violently harm anyone here. Dial it down.
You have to admit, working with the EU to undermine Brexit is not a good look.
Yes Stewart you did. You betrayed your party and country and colluded with the enemy before doing so.
The EU is not an enemy. Nearly all of its member states are NATO allies. They are not, and are not threatening, to violently harm anyone here. Dial it down.
I am a EU citizen. They are EU citizens. What’s the issue here?
Yes Stewart you did. You betrayed your party and country and colluded with the enemy before doing so.
Also I would love to know in what capacity you have served your country that allows you to so disgracefully demean a former armed serviceman and civil servant in that way.
Yes Stewart you did. You betrayed your party and country and colluded with the enemy before doing so.
The EU is not an enemy. Nearly all of its member states are NATO allies. They are not, and are not threatening, to violently harm anyone here. Dial it down.
I am a EU citizen. They are EU citizens. What’s the issue here?
In case you hadn't noticed, there is a negotiation to leave, and there are two negotiating teams not one.
Yes Stewart you did. You betrayed your party and country and colluded with the enemy before doing so.
The EU is not an enemy. Nearly all of its member states are NATO allies. They are not, and are not threatening, to violently harm anyone here. Dial it down.
I am a EU citizen. They are EU citizens. What’s the issue here?
In case you hadn't noticed, there is a negotiation to leave, and there are two negotiating teams not one.
Hard to see how brexiters are going to get a deal if talking to the EU is treason now
Fine for the government to talk to them, as they are the ones doing the negotiation. It's different when people that are actively seeking to undermine Brexit entirely enter into secret talks with them.
Yes Stewart you did. You betrayed your party and country and colluded with the enemy before doing so.
The EU is not an enemy. Nearly all of its member states are NATO allies. They are not, and are not threatening, to violently harm anyone here. Dial it down.
I am a EU citizen. They are EU citizens. What’s the issue here?
In case you hadn't noticed, there is a negotiation to leave, and there are two negotiating teams not one.
and?
and your point about everyone being EU citizens is therefore irrelevant.
Interesting article , thanks for posting . I think his arguments are good and I can see why the Queen has to follow that advice .
Unfortunately though the Queen will be drawn into the political drama if Johnson tries to do this . And it will cause a further rupture in the Tory party .
Yes Stewart you did. You betrayed your party and country and colluded with the enemy before doing so.
The EU is not an enemy. Nearly all of its member states are NATO allies. They are not, and are not threatening, to violently harm anyone here. Dial it down.
I am a EU citizen. They are EU citizens. What’s the issue here?
In case you hadn't noticed, there is a negotiation to leave, and there are two negotiating teams not one.
and?
and your point about everyone being EU citizens is therefore irrelevant.
It’s not irrelevant when people are throwing around hyperbole like “collaborating with a foreign power”.
Interesting article, but a bit exaggerated. In this high stakes stand off each side is giving nothing away whatever. Neither Gove nor Boris have either broken the law or said they would do so. An interpretation - and that's all - turns words in that direction and becomes a headline.
Boris has a number of ways of adhering to the law. These include doing a deal in time, or resigning, or playing games with who is empowered to do the actual obeying of the law, or challenging in court its meaning, validity or force. He may find a way of technically complying while making sure it doesn't happen. He of course can also obey the law by the humiliating actions the Benn Bill requires on its face. But that is not how politics works. There are egos at stake, and not only Boris's.
Personally I think it would be good if he used it ("my hands are tied") to bring back TMs deal. If he does and the Commons rejected it again I think it could be turned to his advantage. A situation where the Commons won't agree an election, won't VONC, won't agree a deal and will force an extension without any reasons for it does not look great.
Interesting article , thanks for posting . I think his arguments are good and I can see why the Queen has to follow that advice .
Unfortunately though the Queen will be drawn into the political drama if Johnson tries to do this . And it will cause a further rupture in the Tory party .
The party is already ruptured.
If the Commons wishes to override Boris's veto let it remove Boris. Job done.
Yes Stewart you did. You betrayed your party and country and colluded with the enemy before doing so.
The EU is not an enemy. Nearly all of its member states are NATO allies. They are not, and are not threatening, to violently harm anyone here. Dial it down.
I am a EU citizen. They are EU citizens. What’s the issue here?
In case you hadn't noticed, there is a negotiation to leave, and there are two negotiating teams not one.
and?
and your point about everyone being EU citizens is therefore irrelevant.
It’s not irrelevant when people are throwing around hyperbole like “collaborating with a foreign power”.
Yes, that is silly. But on the broader point they are right. British politicians secretly discussing with the EU ways to undermine Brexit isn't a good look.
Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.
Parliament can change the PM if its not happy with the veto.
How can it if it is prorogued minutes after assent is refused?
If black rod came to summon the Commons minutes after assent is refused I think Speaker Bercow would shout out to lock the doors prior to the debate being concluded and refuse the summons. That's just not going to happen.
No one could possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.
The MPs are summoned first. They go into the House of Lords. Then royal assent is granted (or not). Then parliament is prorogued.
So, let us assume that when the list of Bills to be assented to is read out one isn't there. There's time enough for the Speaker, as representative of the House of Commons to turn round and return to the Commons. Probably lock the doors. Could/would Assent be given to anything in those circumstances? The Soveriegn is no longer with both Houses. And what sort of deep doo-doo would that land us in?
None of the bizarre scenarios being discussed will ever come to pass. I mean we are through the looking glass if we are discussing Bercow barricading himself in the commons. It's the end of sodding days if we get there!
Its not through the looking glass, MPs barricade themselves in the Commons annually.
MPs will demand assent before prorogation - and if assent is denied will refuse to be prorogued prior to debating that [and voting on a VONC if necessary]
This should be very simple for everyone. Our Parliament has passed a law. Whether we like it or not, it is the law. If you depart from that statement you’re saying you no longer believe in the rule of law.
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.
I'm almost tempted to agree with you, but obeyance of the law isn't automatic. If Parliament passed a law mandating the slaughter of the firstborn, to disobey that law would be an act of civil disobedience and arguably a moral duty.
In demanding an extension while refusing an election, parliament has deliberately acted so as to frustrate the result of the 2016 referendum and as scuch is a direct attack on democracy. For the government of the day to disobey such a law is arguably a moral duty. And if Parliament don't like it, they can always call an election.
Except that parties opposing a No Deal Brexit got a majority of the votes in the 2017 general election.
This should be very simple for everyone. Our Parliament has passed a law. Whether we like it or not, it is the law. If you depart from that statement you’re saying you no longer believe in the rule of law.
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.
I'm almost tempted to agree with you, but obeyance of the law isn't automatic. If Parliament passed a law mandating the slaughter of the firstborn, to disobey that law would be an act of civil disobedience and arguably a moral duty.
In demanding an extension while refusing an election, parliament has deliberately acted so as to frustrate the result of the 2016 referendum and as scuch is a direct attack on democracy. For the government of the day to disobey such a law is arguably a moral duty. And if Parliament don't like it, they can always call an election.
Except that parties opposing a No Deal Brexit got a majority of the votes in the 2017 general election.
Yes Stewart you did. You betrayed your party and country and colluded with the enemy before doing so.
Also I would love to know in what capacity you have served your country that allows you to so disgracefully demean a former armed serviceman and civil servant in that way.
Robert E. Lee was an active armed serviceman. Didn't stop him betraying his country.
Re the secret talks alleged. It is problematic. Nobody but the government has the authority to negotiate on behalf of the country/HMQ, the LOTO is slightly different because they represent the government in waiting as it were, and informal talks are not an issue in that regard. But a group of backbenchers cannot seek to undermine the UK position by negotiating with the EU. That's the rebel alliance's biggest problem with keeping Bojo at the crease, the EU cannot assume what the UK position would be if he were not there, BJ is the UK at the summit and if he says no referendum, no election, no money for you then that is the UK position. If they demand to know what he will do with the extension and he replies 'nothing' then that is the position of the UK and they can't assume otherwise. If it came out definitively that backbenchers had cut a deal with the EU negotiating team it would be very very problematic, and would be treason in the strictest sense of the word, the undermining of and acting against HMQ and her government with a foreign power.
So Aus are clear favourites to win but do they have time? Surely they will set a target of at least 350 and probably a bit more - so they aren't going to have much time to bowl this evening.
Re the secret talks alleged. It is problematic. Nobody but the government has the authority to negotiate on behalf of the country/HMQ, the LOTO is slightly different because they represent the government in waiting as it were, and informal talks are not an issue in that regard. But a group of backbenchers cannot seek to undermine the UK position by negotiating with the EU. That's the rebel alliance's biggest problem with keeping Bojo at the crease, the EU cannot assume what the UK position would be if he were not there, BJ is the UK at the summit and if he says no referendum, no election, no money for you then that is the UK position. If they demand to know what he will do with the extension and he replies 'nothing' then that is the position of the UK and they can't assume otherwise. If it came out definitively that backbenchers had cut a deal with the EU negotiating team it would be very very problematic, and would be treason in the strictest sense of the word, the undermining of and acting against HMQ and her government with a foreign power.
Good grief drop the hyperbole .
The so called talks could have simply been is an extension likely . They’re hardly plotting an invasion with EU tanks on the Mall .
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
Indeed and the idea that this is a domestic matter as we are a part of the EU is not true. The decision to extend or not as far as the EU is concerned is decided by 27 countries but explicitly not ours. As people have pointed out, we are "outside the room". They are foreign powers this is not domestic.
Re the secret talks alleged. It is problematic. Nobody but the government has the authority to negotiate on behalf of the country/HMQ, the LOTO is slightly different because they represent the government in waiting as it were, and informal talks are not an issue in that regard. But a group of backbenchers cannot seek to undermine the UK position by negotiating with the EU. That's the rebel alliance's biggest problem with keeping Bojo at the crease, the EU cannot assume what the UK position would be if he were not there, BJ is the UK at the summit and if he says no referendum, no election, no money for you then that is the UK position. If they demand to know what he will do with the extension and he replies 'nothing' then that is the position of the UK and they can't assume otherwise. If it came out definitively that backbenchers had cut a deal with the EU negotiating team it would be very very problematic, and would be treason in the strictest sense of the word, the undermining of and acting against HMQ and her government with a foreign power.
Good grief drop the hyperbole .
The so called talks could have simply been is an extension likely . They’re hardly plotting an invasion with EU tanks on the Mall .
Who knows? Maybe they gave the EU advice on how to stonewall the government's negotiators.
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
The EU have been discussing Brexit with all the parties since 2016. This is nothing new.
I would expect UK officials have regular discussions with Nancy Pelosi. It does not make Pelosi a traitor or the UK trying to collude against the US govt.
So Aus are clear favourites to win but do they have time? Surely they will set a target of at least 350 and probably a bit more - so they aren't going to have much time to bowl this evening.
Its a bet on whether you think England have the maturity and patience to bat 100 overs.
Re the secret talks alleged. It is problematic. Nobody but the government has the authority to negotiate on behalf of the country/HMQ, the LOTO is slightly different because they represent the government in waiting as it were, and informal talks are not an issue in that regard. But a group of backbenchers cannot seek to undermine the UK position by negotiating with the EU. That's the rebel alliance's biggest problem with keeping Bojo at the crease, the EU cannot assume what the UK position would be if he were not there, BJ is the UK at the summit and if he says no referendum, no election, no money for you then that is the UK position. If they demand to know what he will do with the extension and he replies 'nothing' then that is the position of the UK and they can't assume otherwise. If it came out definitively that backbenchers had cut a deal with the EU negotiating team it would be very very problematic, and would be treason in the strictest sense of the word, the undermining of and acting against HMQ and her government with a foreign power.
Good grief drop the hyperbole .
The so called talks could have simply been is an extension likely . They’re hardly plotting an invasion with EU tanks on the Mall .
Who knows? Maybe they gave the EU advice on how to stonewall the government's negotiators.
Absolutely!
What possible reason do the EU have to grant us any concessions if these traitors have decided to collude with them?
Re the secret talks alleged. It is problematic. Nobody but the government has the authority to negotiate on behalf of the country/HMQ, the LOTO is slightly different because they represent the government in waiting as it were, and informal talks are not an issue in that regard. But a group of backbenchers cannot seek to undermine the UK position by negotiating with the EU. That's the rebel alliance's biggest problem with keeping Bojo at the crease, the EU cannot assume what the UK position would be if he were not there, BJ is the UK at the summit and if he says no referendum, no election, no money for you then that is the UK position. If they demand to know what he will do with the extension and he replies 'nothing' then that is the position of the UK and they can't assume otherwise. If it came out definitively that backbenchers had cut a deal with the EU negotiating team it would be very very problematic, and would be treason in the strictest sense of the word, the undermining of and acting against HMQ and her government with a foreign power.
Good grief drop the hyperbole .
The so called talks could have simply been is an extension likely . They’re hardly plotting an invasion with EU tanks on the Mall .
The talks should not happen at all, the rebels have no authority to conduct talks with another country/group of countries. I guess they are welcome to say what they think might happen but HMQs government are looking to leave Oct 31, negotiating how to make that not happen with the EU is very very problematic. They carry no authority and are therefore working to undermine the government. That's not hyperbole its fact. You can't just run around negotiating with whonever you like
Mr. Observer, and yet MPs standing for parties opposed to no deal refused to support a deal on multiple occasions.
They mostly voted against "the" deal not a deal. Leavers do not seem to realise 5/6 MPs have voted for either Mays deal or soft Brexit. The indicative votes made clear the majority in the commons is for soft Brexit once Mays payroll vote which included plenty of the now rebels, is taken into account.
The anger for brexit not being delivered should be against the leaderships of both parties, not the individual MPs.
If Boris doesn't ask for an extension how long would Court case take?
I know Courts will move quickly but no case could even be initiated until after 19 Oct. A hearing would then have to be scheduled, case heard, judgement delivered then the whole process repeated for an appeal etc. Could it be strung out past 31 Oct?
The prorogation cases are still ongoing - and they've been allowed to drag on beyond the date of prorogation.
So Aus are clear favourites to win but do they have time? Surely they will set a target of at least 350 and probably a bit more - so they aren't going to have much time to bowl this evening.
Its a bet on whether you think England have the maturity and patience to bat 100 overs.
QTWAIN.
Unless the weather interferes if Australia declare with a 400 lead and 100 overs remaining I'd sooner back England to hit the target than bat out the overs.
Let's be honest here, if Boris refuses to ask for an extension under dubious interpertation of the no deal law, what exactly can Parliament do about it?
Re the secret talks alleged. It is problematic. Nobody but the government has the authority to negotiate on behalf of the country/HMQ, the LOTO is slightly different because they represent the government in waiting as it were, and informal talks are not an issue in that regard. But a group of backbenchers cannot seek to undermine the UK position by negotiating with the EU. That's the rebel alliance's biggest problem with keeping Bojo at the crease, the EU cannot assume what the UK position would be if he were not there, BJ is the UK at the summit and if he says no referendum, no election, no money for you then that is the UK position. If they demand to know what he will do with the extension and he replies 'nothing' then that is the position of the UK and they can't assume otherwise. If it came out definitively that backbenchers had cut a deal with the EU negotiating team it would be very very problematic, and would be treason in the strictest sense of the word, the undermining of and acting against HMQ and her government with a foreign power.
Good grief drop the hyperbole .
The so called talks could have simply been is an extension likely . They’re hardly plotting an invasion with EU tanks on the Mall .
The talks should not happen at all, the rebels have no authority to conduct talks with another country/group of countries. I guess they are welcome to say what they think might happen but HMQs government are looking to leave Oct 31, negotiating how to make that not happen with the EU is very very problematic. They carry no authority and are therefore working to undermine the government. That's not hyperbole its fact. You can't just run around negotiating with whonever you like
Absolute drivel. Govts across the world talk to opposition leaders around the world on an hourly basis. This is common sense.
If Boris doesn't ask for an extension how long would Court case take?
I know Courts will move quickly but no case could even be initiated until after 19 Oct. A hearing would then have to be scheduled, case heard, judgement delivered then the whole process repeated for an appeal etc. Could it be strung out past 31 Oct?
The prorogation cases are still ongoing - and they've been allowed to drag on beyond the date of prorogation.
IANAL but I'd imagine the courts could issue an injunction within 24 hours and a full remedy before then.
A VONC could be done instantly if the Commons ever wishes to act like grown ups.
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
The EU have been discussing Brexit with all the parties since 2016. This is nothing new.
I would expect UK officials have regular discussions with Nancy Pelosi. It does not make Pelosi a traitor or the UK trying to collude against the US govt.
Well that's the point, its discussion on unofficial levels which are irrelevant versus negotiation and agreed actions. If the EU just want to know what the rebels position is thats fine, but they can't agree they will offer x y and z in return for the rebels ensuring the Benn Bill passes, for example.
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
Weren't they just checking that the EU would indeed grant an extension if one was requested? If anything they were being helpful to Boris - no point losing him his majority if No Deal was nailed on anyway. Boris and Cummings should be thanking them for injecting a bit of clarity and thoroughness.
Let's be honest here, if Boris refuses to ask for an extension under dubious interpertation of the no deal law, what exactly can Parliament do about it?
Lock him up in Big Ben (seriously within their powers, not sure if the renovations have kept the cells there or not though).
In practice just vote for anyone else to be PM for a day and let Boris and anyone who colluded with him become bankrupt with civil litigation from those who lose out from no deal. Probably not appealing for elite Eton baronets with £100m+ fortune types.
Let's be honest here, if Boris refuses to ask for an extension under dubious interpertation of the no deal law, what exactly can Parliament do about it?
VONC him and install a PM who will ask for the extension.
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
The EU have been discussing Brexit with all the parties since 2016. This is nothing new.
I would expect UK officials have regular discussions with Nancy Pelosi. It does not make Pelosi a traitor or the UK trying to collude against the US govt.
Well that's the point, its discussion on unofficial levels which are irrelevant versus negotiation and agreed actions. If the EU just want to know what the rebels position is thats fine, but they can't agree they will offer x y and z in return for the rebels ensuring the Benn Bill passes, for example.
What do you think the UK govt will be doing with Pelosi? They will be saying can we get x, y and z through congress in a trade deal.
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
Weren't they just checking that the EU would indeed grant an extension if one was requested? If anything they were being helpful to Boris - no point losing him his majority if No Deal was nailed on anyway. Boris and Cummings should be thanking them for injecting a bit of clarity and thoroughness.
It's a thin line to tread and easy to overstep if one gets excited at all the sovereign power one suddenly thinks one has.
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
The EU have been discussing Brexit with all the parties since 2016. This is nothing new.
I would expect UK officials have regular discussions with Nancy Pelosi. It does not make Pelosi a traitor or the UK trying to collude against the US govt.
Well that's the point, its discussion on unofficial levels which are irrelevant versus negotiation and agreed actions. If the EU just want to know what the rebels position is thats fine, but they can't agree they will offer x y and z in return for the rebels ensuring the Benn Bill passes, for example.
What do you think the UK govt will be doing with Pelosi? They will be saying can we get x, y and z through congress in a trade deal.
Separation of powers is different in the States. But they wont be negotiating with Pelosii they will be discussing their respective positions, Pelosi has no authority to conclude a trade deal
Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.
Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.
He can't. Royal assent is a formality. It is never denied. If Boris tried to drag the Queen into politics by asking her to refuse or delay assent to this bill he will, I am quite certain, be told where to go.
That's not true. It was denied in 1707.
Everything is a formality until it isn't.
It has been a formality for three centuries. For over a century the monarchy has kept itself out of politics. If you really think our current Queen will change that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.
Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.
He can't. Royal assent is a formality. It is never denied. If Boris tried to drag the Queen into politics by asking her to refuse or delay assent to this bill he will, I am quite certain, be told where to go.
That's not true. It was denied in 1707.
Everything is a formality until it isn't.
It has been a formality for three centuries. For over a century the monarchy has kept itself out of politics. If you really think our current Queen will change that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
The monarchy keeps itself out by accepting her ministers advise.
If the monarch's ministers advise her to refuse assent then what is the monarch to do?
Comments
The MPs are summoned first. They go into the House of Lords. Then royal assent is granted (or not). Then parliament is prorogued.
I would really love a Boris GE win just to see the reaction of the Baker-Francois gang when they discover they've been the useful idiots for the ambition of Boris.
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.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentwork/offices-and-ceremonies/overview/prorogation1/prorogation/
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09/05/michael-detmold-the-proper-denial-of-royal-assent/
Could/would Assent be given to anything in those circumstances? The Soveriegn is no longer with both Houses.
And what sort of deep doo-doo would that land us in?
In demanding an extension while refusing an election, parliament has deliberately acted so as to frustrate the result of the 2016 referendum and as scuch is a direct attack on democracy. For the government of the day to disobey such a law is arguably a moral duty. And if Parliament don't like it, they can always call an election.
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09/05/michael-detmold-the-proper-denial-of-royal-assent/
Goodbye all.
Remainers and Leavers can argue about Brexit , fair enough but for a PM to ignore a law and try and gain public support for that action is reprehensible .
Similarly while HMQ might agree to refuse assent on the advice of her ministers - she certainly won't be involved with doing so during the formal prorogation ceremony.
If Boris advices HMQ to refuse assent and she agrees I think she would rightly insist that occur prior to the prorogation ceremony.
I.e. Boris requests an extension, and makes it clear that if it is granted the UK will exercise every single legal right and veto it possesses, on every single part of the EU's business it can affect, every single day, to bring the EU apparatus grinding to a halt.
Et voila! The EU may just refuse the extension.
@Philip_Thompson ?
https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1170328214612447234?s=21
Not that I expect HM the Q to get in the middle of next week's fiasco.
Unfortunately though the Queen will be drawn into the political drama if Johnson tries to do this . And it will cause a further rupture in the Tory party .
Boris has a number of ways of adhering to the law. These include doing a deal in time, or resigning, or playing games with who is empowered to do the actual obeying of the law, or challenging in court its meaning, validity or force. He may find a way of technically complying while making sure it doesn't happen. He of course can also obey the law by the humiliating actions the Benn Bill requires on its face. But that is not how politics works. There are egos at stake, and not only Boris's.
Personally I think it would be good if he used it ("my hands are tied") to bring back TMs deal. If he does and the Commons rejected it again I think it could be turned to his advantage. A situation where the Commons won't agree an election, won't VONC, won't agree a deal and will force an extension without any reasons for it does not look great.
If the Commons wishes to override Boris's veto let it remove Boris. Job done.
MPs will demand assent before prorogation - and if assent is denied will refuse to be prorogued prior to debating that [and voting on a VONC if necessary]
That's the rebel alliance's biggest problem with keeping Bojo at the crease, the EU cannot assume what the UK position would be if he were not there, BJ is the UK at the summit and if he says no referendum, no election, no money for you then that is the UK position. If they demand to know what he will do with the extension and he replies 'nothing' then that is the position of the UK and they can't assume otherwise.
If it came out definitively that backbenchers had cut a deal with the EU negotiating team it would be very very problematic, and would be treason in the strictest sense of the word, the undermining of and acting against HMQ and her government with a foreign power.
Draw 3.1
So Aus are clear favourites to win but do they have time? Surely they will set a target of at least 350 and probably a bit more - so they aren't going to have much time to bowl this evening.
The so called talks could have simply been is an extension likely . They’re hardly plotting an invasion with EU tanks on the Mall .
I think there's a difference between those who also opposed the WDA and so deserve no sympathy and those who voted for the WDA and do.
If May had chosen to be decisive instead of can kicking its possible it would be the Baker-Francois gang who lost the whip rather than Rory and KenC.
The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
As you well know. Parliament voted agai8 the only deal 3 times, so now the only option left is no deal.
I would expect UK officials have regular discussions with Nancy Pelosi. It does not make Pelosi a traitor or the UK trying to collude against the US govt.
What possible reason do the EU have to grant us any concessions if these traitors have decided to collude with them?
That's not hyperbole its fact. You can't just run around negotiating with whonever you like
Simply remainer frothing.
There are many many other scenarios that may occur - probably some not even been mentioned.
The anger for brexit not being delivered should be against the leaderships of both parties, not the individual MPs.
Brexit is tough. No Deal is no solution.
I know Courts will move quickly but no case could even be initiated until after 19 Oct. A hearing would then have to be scheduled, case heard, judgement delivered then the whole process repeated for an appeal etc. Could it be strung out past 31 Oct?
The prorogation cases are still ongoing - and they've been allowed to drag on beyond the date of prorogation.
Unless the weather interferes if Australia declare with a 400 lead and 100 overs remaining I'd sooner back England to hit the target than bat out the overs.
A VONC could be done instantly if the Commons ever wishes to act like grown ups.
In practice just vote for anyone else to be PM for a day and let Boris and anyone who colluded with him become bankrupt with civil litigation from those who lose out from no deal. Probably not appealing for elite Eton baronets with £100m+ fortune types.
See how silly this can become?
Labour MPs were whipped to support Common Market 2.0
Conservatives were given a free vote [except cabinet abstaining] on Common Market 2.0
Considering the opposition whipped to support it and the government gave a free vote, tell me again how the Commons supports it?
The Commons rejected every possible deal and has given no evidence of supporting this rejecting it when it was proposed.
Or given that this Commons has ruled out every option we should have an election and let the public choose a new Commons.
If the monarch's ministers advise her to refuse assent then what is the monarch to do?