Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[Arcade22]

Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ. Allowing the SC to set new standards for the PM instead is an abrogation of their democratic duty.

Why would they save him from making a fool of himself?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Which section of the constitution outlines these circumstances and why was there no reference to it in the SC decision?


No matter what word smithing you use, the SC created a new law and applied it to the PM retrospectively.

What new law did they create?

this is nonsense. you don't know what you are talking about

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?'

The SC ruled 'No, there are limits to that power.'

That's not a coup, not a new law, not anything out of the ordinary at all.

If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO'

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Why would they save him from making a fool of himself?

Conservatives pass a law preventing the party in power to unilaterally call premature elections based on advantageous timing for themselves.

Also Conservatives complain because the opposition parties won't agree to call a premature election in the narrow window of opportunity that is advantageous to Boris.

 

[Darat]

Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?'

The SC ruled 'No, there are limits to that power.'

That's not a coup, not a new law, not anything out of the ordinary at all.

If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO'

Especially the likes of Mogg.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Still amazed that Bojo picked Rees Moss to be the House Majority leader. Apparenly a lot of Tories cannot stand him. Brilliant choice ,Boris.

Makes sense, he didn't want someone who could be a threat within the party.

 

[timhau]

Michael Gove tells LBC Radio in an interview "The Prime Minister is a born winner"

So all the losing comes via nurture?

 

[Nessie]

I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.u...amatic-history-prorogation-british-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.

 

[zooterkin]

I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.u...amatic-history-prorogation-british-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.

And it has been used much more recently to prevent embarrassment, as when John Major prorogued parliament in 1997 to delay the publication of the cash for questions report ahead of the election.

 

[Parsman]

The Mail is asking, "Who runs Britain?" They seem to have missed that the answer is, definitively, "Parliament." The Express is whingeing about Brexit, though we know from Boris that the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit; they must have missed that bit. The Sun has decided, in its usual classy way, that personal abuse against Lady Hale is the responsible way to go.

All the rest of the papers seem to be giving Boris the kicking he deserves.

Dave

I should mention that there are Scottish editions of all the UK papers. The Mail and the Express have followed the English line on this but the Scottish Sun has taken a very anti-Boris line.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Frankie Boyle tweeted
@frankieboyle

Now understand that when Cummings implied he wanted to emulate Bismarck he meant the ship.

 

[Nessie]

And it has been used much more recently to prevent embarrassment, as when John Major prorogued parliament in 1997 to delay the publication of the cash for questions report ahead of the election.

That maybe should have been challenged at the time, but since it was just prior to a planned election, it was not considered serious enough to challenge. Major lost that election, with the cash for questions and other Tory sleaze scandals being one of the reasons for that loss.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That maybe should have been challenged at the time, but since it was just prior to a planned election, it was not considered serious enough to challenge. Major lost that election, with the cash for questions and other Tory sleaze scandals being one of the reasons for that loss.

One of the entertaining aspects of the current crisis has been the very astute series of comments made by Major himself about the risks an unregulated power of prorogation poses to democracy. I frequently find myself thinking, "Well, of all people, he should know."

Dave

 

[BobTheCoward]

Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?'

The SC ruled 'No, there are limits to that power.'

That's not a coup, not a new law, not anything out of the ordinary at all.

If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO'

I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176820359057813504

Significant: @NickBoles asks @Geoffrey_Cox if the government will abide by the Benn Act if there’s no new Brexit deal?

“Yes”

So we might not be leaving the EU on October 31 after all.

On the Benn Act: Cox says the government will “obey the law” *but*

“There is a question of precisely what the government needs to do to obey the law.”

Still looks like the government thinks there is a loophole to duck out of requesting a Brexit delay.

 

[Darat]

I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question.

'tis

 

[BobTheCoward]

'tis

"Can" and ""shall" are matters of law.

"Should" is a moral question.

 

[Mojo]

I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question.

Do you agree with psionl0?

If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The daily mail is so stupid.

Earlier I was saying it was parliament's job to set the rules of prorogration if they didn't like it. And they did. They made up the supreme Court and gave it it's power. They created a vehicle to stick it to the prime Minister when they are away. Good for them.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Do you agree with psionl0?

It is a silly invention of parliament itself. Parliament is sovereign and can alter the legislative process if they wish. If their toy manages to make a law without them and they don't care, then I don't care.