Jump to content

Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

Groose

Mod Note: As we are getting rather tired of seeing reports about this. The use of the word Remoaners  is to cease. Either posts like adults, or don't post at all. The mod warnings have been clear.

Message added by Groose

mort

In addition to remoaner we are also not going to allow the use of libdums or liebore - if you cannot behave like adults and post without recourse to these childish insults then please refrain from posting. If you have a problem with this then you all know where the helpdesk is. 

Message added by mort

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Dromedary said:

Maybe you could state what British laws you think he is tearing up?

 

In a way all of them. This is, of course, one of the less positive consequences of not having a proper written constitution. 

 

If he gets away with this once, he or any future Prime Minister, will find it easier to do it whenever they get into a situation where they want to avoid the proper scrutiny and control of their actions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mister M said:

"There's this idea from some people that to deliver Brexit we should suspend our parliamentary democracy - that we should prorogue Parliament. But that goes against everything that those men who waded on to those beaches fought and died for (on D-Day) and I will not have it." Matt Hancock, Health & Social Care Secretary, Conservative leadership election, 2019.

 

"I think it's outrageous to consider proroguing Parliament. We are not Stuart kings." Amber Rudd, Work and Pensions Secretary, during the Conservative leadership election, 2019.

 

"You don't deliver on democracy by trashing democracy. We are not selecting a dictator of our country, we are selecting a prime minister of our country." Sajid Javid, then Home Secretary now Chancellor, Conservative leadership election, 2019.

 

"Proroguing Parliament is clearly a mad suggestion. You cannot say you are going to take back control and then go: 'Oh, by the way, we are just going to shut Parliament down for a couple of months, so we are just going to drift out on a no deal'." Nicky Morgan, Question Time, 2019

 

"I think it will be wrong for many reasons. I think it would not be true to the best traditions of British democracy." Michael Gove, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, 2019.

It's normal to prorogue Parliament.  They have to prorogue Parliament in order for there to be a new Queen's Speech  telling us what the Government are going to do in the next year in Parliament.  It's also normal for Parliament not to sit during the Party Conference season.  There has been a lot of fuss about nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mister M said:

"There's this idea from some people that to deliver Brexit we should suspend our parliamentary democracy - that we should prorogue Parliament. But that goes against everything that those men who waded on to those beaches fought and died for (on D-Day) and I will not have it." Matt Hancock, Health & Social Care Secretary, Conservative leadership election, 2019.

 

"I think it's outrageous to consider proroguing Parliament. We are not Stuart kings." Amber Rudd, Work and Pensions Secretary, during the Conservative leadership election, 2019.

 

"You don't deliver on democracy by trashing democracy. We are not selecting a dictator of our country, we are selecting a prime minister of our country." Sajid Javid, then Home Secretary now Chancellor, Conservative leadership election, 2019.

 

"Proroguing Parliament is clearly a mad suggestion. You cannot say you are going to take back control and then go: 'Oh, by the way, we are just going to shut Parliament down for a couple of months, so we are just going to drift out on a no deal'." Nicky Morgan, Question Time, 2019

 

"I think it will be wrong for many reasons. I think it would not be true to the best traditions of British democracy." Michael Gove, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, 2019.

I look forward to their resignations later today. Obviously such heart felt and honest opinions would lead to nothing less.

 

Unless....unless they are lying careerist charlatans.....

 

Hmm, I wonder which it will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

It's normal to prorogue Parliament.  They have to prorogue Parliament in order for there to be a new Queen's Speech  telling us what the Government are going to do in the next year in Parliament.  It's also normal for Parliament not to sit during the Party Conference season.  There has been a lot of fuss about nothing.

Its the longest in 70 years, the length of time varies - in 2016 Parliament was closed for four working days, while in 2014 it was closed for 13 days.

This year, Parliament would be suspended for 23 working days before the new Queen's speech on 14 October.

 

8 August 2019

The latest idea to be floated in this month of anticipation is a plan by cross-party rebels to force parliament to sit through the autumn recess. They would hope, as reported in the Guardian, to amend the motion needed for parliament to break for party conferences in mid-September. This tends to be a three-week break from mid-September until early October. (This year, the Liberal Democrat conference begins on 14 September, and the last one, for the SNP, concludes on 15 October.) In that three-week period, they would then hope to seize control of parliamentary business, with the ultimate aim of forcing through a backbench bill compelling the government to request another extension of Article 50.

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/08/will-year-s-party-conferences-be-cancelled-brexit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, El Cid said:

Its the longest in 70 years, the length of time varies - in 2016 Parliament was closed for four working days, while in 2014 it was closed for 13 days.

This year, Parliament would be suspended for 23 working days before the new Queen's speech on 14 October.

 

8 August 2019

The latest idea to be floated in this month of anticipation is a plan by cross-party rebels to force parliament to sit through the autumn recess. They would hope, as reported in the Guardian, to amend the motion needed for parliament to break for party conferences in mid-September. This tends to be a three-week break from mid-September until early October. (This year, the Liberal Democrat conference begins on 14 September, and the last one, for the SNP, concludes on 15 October.) In that three-week period, they would then hope to seize control of parliamentary business, with the ultimate aim of forcing through a backbench bill compelling the government to request another extension of Article 50.

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/08/will-year-s-party-conferences-be-cancelled-brexit

Parliament never sits during the Party Conference season which is  why it's the longest for 70 years..  The current session of Parliament is the longest for 400 years and had to end sometime.  When the new session of Parliament starts, then the MPs will have a chance to debate and vote about about an amended Withdrawal Agreement if one can be agreed between our country and the EU.  It's a lot of fuss about nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radical talk from former head of the Civil Service Bob Kerslake

 

“We are reaching the point where the civil service must consider putting its stewardship of the country ahead of service to the government of the day.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andyofborg said:

In a way all of them. This is, of course, one of the less positive consequences of not having a proper written constitution. 

 

If he gets away with this once, he or any future Prime Minister, will find it easier to do it whenever they get into a situation where they want to avoid the proper scrutiny and control of their actions.

 

 

The precedent already is set in the past. Thats why I doubt any legal action to try and stop it would work. The tactic has been used by both John Major and Clement Attlee to get around scrutiny and objections to what they were doing. 

 

1 hour ago, Lockdoctor said:

It's normal to prorogue Parliament.  They have to prorogue Parliament in order for there to be a new Queen's Speech  telling us what the Government are going to do in the next year in Parliament.  It's also normal for Parliament not to sit during the Party Conference season.  There has been a lot of fuss about nothing.

It's not usual to prorogue for so long, and we all know the reason it is being done. MP's made it clear they planned to try and cancel the conferences to allow Parliament to sit. So that time is lost too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lockdoctor said:

It's normal to prorogue Parliament.  They have to prorogue Parliament in order for there to be a new Queen's Speech  telling us what the Government are going to do in the next year in Parliament.  It's also normal for Parliament not to sit during the Party Conference season.  There has been a lot of fuss about nothing.

If it's normal to prorogue parliament, why did a succession of ministers go to the trouble of stating that in these circumstances it would be a terrible thing to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pettytom said:

Scotland remains in the UK by permission of the citizens of Scotland. Once that permission is withdrawn, all bets are off.

Afraid not. They are part of the UK under an Act of Union by both parliaments and now have limited devolution by permission of the UK. The only way that Act can be dissolved is by agreement of both parties or a civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lockdoctor said:

It's normal to prorogue Parliament.  They have to prorogue Parliament in order for there to be a new Queen's Speech  telling us what the Government are going to do in the next year in Parliament.  It's also normal for Parliament not to sit during the Party Conference season.  There has been a lot of fuss about nothing.

It’s a pretty embarrassing stunt by Johnson. Aside from a few extremist Brexiters and a some self-entitled politicians, hardly anyone has a good word for this.

1 minute ago, Dromedary said:

Afraid not. They are part of the UK under an Act of Union by both parliaments and now have limited devolution by permission of the UK. The only way that Act can be dissolved is by agreement of both parties or a civil war.

As I’ve told you before, Governments only rule by permission of the people .

 

Go and ask Gustav Husak about how that can turn out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

Afraid not. They are part of the UK under an Act of Union by both parliaments and now have limited devolution by permission of the UK. The only way that Act can be dissolved is by agreement of both parties or a civil war.

I think a civil war would be perfectly reasonable considering the way our current dictator is behaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andyofborg said:

In a way all of them. This is, of course, one of the less positive consequences of not having a proper written constitution. 

But when asked what laws he has broken no one can answer!

Quote

If he gets away with this once, he or any future Prime Minister, will find it easier to do it whenever they get into a situation where they want to avoid the proper scrutiny and control of their actions.

As pointed out by others, proroguing parliament is the normal accepted practice at this time of year. Its just that people dont like it because it now affects how brexit is concluded.

6 minutes ago, Obelix said:

I think a civil war would be perfectly reasonable considering the way our current dictator is behaving.

Very highly unlikely especially as there is not a majority of support even for independence. At the last Scottish Independence referendum in 2014 the voter margin was 10.6% in favour of no.

Edited by Dromedary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.