I never felt more about what it must be like living in a right wing dictatorship than now.
I never felt more about what it must be like living in a right wing dictatorship than now.
Just hope the whole thing disintegrates around us.I never felt more about what it must be like living in a right wing dictatorship than now.
"The whole thing" being?Just hope the whole thing disintegrates around us.
The UK, because that is where it's going"The whole thing" being?
I never felt more about what it must be like living in a right wing dictatorship than now.
Parliament has no power to suspend a prorogation. It is one of the Queen's privileges, which we now know she has no freedom to object to but must agree to what the PM asks.Why?
Parliament tacitly consented to the prorogation and to Johnson continuing as Prime Minister
It was entirely free to suspend the prorogation or to remove him from office to avoid this but chose not to do so.
I never understand how people can want desire to see their own country fail.The UK
As @edwin_m says, Parliament cannot stop prorogation, it is entirely at the PM's whim and fancy. And they didn't call for a vote of no confidence for the same reason that they didn't agree to an early General Election: there's nothing stopping the PM from dissolving Parliament and setting the date of the election as the 3rd of November.It was entirely free to suspend the prorogation or to remove him from office to avoid this but chose not to do so.
Could you understand why some members of the German Democratic Republic wanted that country to fail?I never understand how people can want desire to see their own country fail.
I have no doubt that they wanted it to change. I'm not so sure that they wanted it to fail. There is a difference.Could you understand why some members of the German Democratic Republic wanted that country to fail?
I have no doubt that they wanted it to change. I'm not so sure that they wanted it to fail. There is a difference.
I have no doubt that they wanted it to change. I'm not so sure that they wanted it to fail. There is a difference.
Parliament has no power to suspend a prorogation. It is one of the Queen's privileges, which we now know she has no freedom to object to but must agree to what the PM asks.
Again, Parliament is supreme.Parliament could have voted no confidence in Johnson anytime but there still isn't enough unity around an alternative to guarantee that he wouldn't be back or trigger an election where he would have the right to choose the date. This power could be used to prevent Parliament intervening in the last few days before Brexit.
As @edwin_m says, Parliament cannot stop prorogation, it is entirely at the PM's whim and fancy. And they didn't call for a vote of no confidence for the same reason that they didn't agree to an early General Election: there's nothing stopping the PM from dissolving Parliament and setting the date of the election as the 3rd of November.
Now that's a statement that would keep constitutional lawyers busy for years.Parliament can stop prorogation in extremis because parliament can do anything it wants.
And if the Prime Minister advises the Queen not to give the law royal assent?But most likely it could hold a general election on whatever date it chooses by amending the FTPA such that an election should occur on a given date.
Well, that's how I feel about the EU. Unfortunately the anti-democratic movement that supports it has done a good job of blocking anything and everything that would threaten its status quo and all we can really hope for at this point is for its financial mismanagement to cause it crash and burn under the weight of its own stupidity. Given that Christine Legard is a serious contender for head of the ECB that might not be far off - she's left Argentina in ruins with interest rats of something like 85% (not 0.85% - eighty five percent) and is apparently happy with her work. But then, no one with any power in the EU has to worry about performance reviews. As long as they look after their mates, their mates will look after them.Am in two minds about this. Sometimes things have to properly break before they can be fixed.
If the PM still had actual power to refuse royal assent on such a bill, which does not affect the Royal Prerogative, he would have advised the Queen to refuse consent on the anti no-deal bill.And if the Prime Minister advises the Queen not to give the law royal assent?
This is so far into constitutional theory that it's anyone's guess as to what would happen. Because remember that the PM can only advise the monarch, she doesn't have to follow that advice.If the PM still had actual power to refuse royal assent on such a bill, which does not affect the Royal Prerogative, he would have advised the Queen to refuse consent on the anti no-deal bill.
Either is possible in theory but has to get through all stages in both houses of Parliament. Changing prorogation in particular is a major constitutional change raising all sorts of questions about the role of the monarch, which should really be discussed in depth - complex legislation passed in a hurry usually ends up with loopholes as the FTPA has shown. It's a much bigger deal than taking control of business for a day. Without that change, Boris could use prorogation to curtail Parliament prior to any election date that Parliament tried to set.Parliament can stop prorogation in extremis because parliament can do anything it wants.
But most likely it could hold a general election on whatever date it chooses by amending the FTPA such that an election should occur on a given date.
Parliament has power to do anything it has the will to do.
Now that's a statement that would keep constitutional lawyers busy for years.
But most likely it could hold a general election on whatever date it chooses by amending the FTPA such that an election should occur on a given date.
And if the Prime Minister advises the Queen not to give the law royal assent?
That process only takes time because Parliament permits it to take time.The method by which Parliament can stop a Prime Minister doing they don't want him to do is to give its support/confidence to a different individual. That is, a motion of no confidence in the existing Government, followed by a motion of confidence in another Government (and Prime Minister). Doing that takes time, however, and in the meantime the existing Prime Minister still holds their prerogative powers.
I'm not sure passing a bill that provides that notwithstanding the FTPA, an election will be held on date x is really a major constitutional change with lasting impacts.Either is possible in theory but has to get through all stages in both houses of Parliament. Changing prorogation in particular is a major constitutional change raising all sorts of questions about the role of the monarch, which should really be discussed in depth - complex legislation passed in a hurry usually ends up with loopholes as the FTPA has shown. It's a much bigger deal than taking control of business for a day. Without that change, Boris could use prorogation to curtail Parliament prior to any election date that Parliament tried to set.
I'm not sure how much of parliamentary procedure is a matter of convention v actually required. But a vote of no confidence takes, if memory serves, at least two days. In which time the PM remains PM and can prorogue parliament.That process only takes time because Parliament permits it to take time.
If they actually wanted Boris gone he could be gone in a matter of hours.
While I've no doubt it felt good to type that statement, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to actual fact. Might I remind you that we were six votes away from leaving the EU in the April round of voting and it was hard-core Brexiteers who prevented it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47779783Instead of finding a compromise, the Remainers in Parliament have refused to accept the deal on offer from the EU, no deal, or basically anything other than complete capitulation to their demand that the referendum decision be ignored.
Ultimately, might makes right. Anyone can do whatever they like if they have enough force. That might be the government with the army (or the monarch, if it came to that), or the public with civil unrest. Once you get into conversations about obeying the constitution then you're only a few steps away from this reality. Once the riots start, what silly bills "parliament" passes become a lot less important.
I feel this is one thing that every side in the Brexit debacle has largely ignored. There is a real chance of civil unrest in Scotland, Northern Ireland (indeed, the IRA have already fired more than one warning shot), and even parts of England (Wales seems fairly quiet). Instead of finding a compromise, the Remainers in Parliament have refused to accept the deal on offer from the EU, no deal, or basically anything other than complete capitulation to their demand that the referendum decision be ignored. The result is polarisation and further entrenchment on the Leave side; the story of modern life in a nutshell - pick a side, check into your local echo-chamber, never discuss the actual issues, and never ever give an inch. And, of course, blame the other side for everything. But if you ask the people what they want and then say they can't have it under any circumstance, it's you who lit the fuse.
Dictators don't offer general elections.I never felt more about what it must be like living in a right wing dictatorship than now.
Ultimately, might makes right. Anyone can do whatever they like if they have enough force. That might be the government with the army (or the monarch, if it came to that), or the public with civil unrest. Once you get into conversations about obeying the constitution then you're only a few steps away from this reality. Once the riots start, what silly bills "parliament" passes become a lot less important …. but if you ask the people what they want and then say they can't have it under any circumstance, it's you who lit the fuse.
Dictators don't offer general elections.