Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

Status
Not open for further replies.
lomiller said:
Laws don’t need to be written nor is doing so a guarantee against a constitutional crisis. The most effective constitutions are the ones make the principles clear instead of trying to write out every possible scenario. In the UK the principle is clear, Parliament is the highest authority.
Click to expand...

Then it shouldn't matter if the prime Minister requests to prorogue parliament. If parliament is the highest authority, they would be free to continue conducting business. Just pat the PM on the head and go about business.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Then it shouldn't matter if the prime Minister requests to prorogue parliament. If parliament is the highest authority, they would be free to continue conducting business. Just pat the PM on the head and go about business.
Click to expand...

In theory, the PM advises the monarch, and she has to approve any act of parliament by signing it into law.

It's just that the last time the monarch went against Parliament, he was deposed, and the previous monarch was executed after being indicted for treason.
 
jimbob said:
In theory, the PM advises the monarch, and she has to approve any act of parliament by signing it into law.

It's just that the last time the monarch went against Parliament, he was deposed, and the previous monarch was executed after being indicted for treason.
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about parliament ignoring the monarch and the pm. Can they do that if they really don't feel like being prorogued?
 
The Don said:
Not really.



It was Eleanor of Aquitaine who brought most of the English crown's lands in France.
Click to expand...
Right. The Angevin Dynasty were Norman French who acquired the English Crown. Angevin refers to their heritage and center of political gravity in Anjou, France.
 
uke2se said:
Which is why your standard demonstrations won't be enough. They need to grow and become a true nuisance. Think Hong Kong.

Might not be enough either, but it'll show the world that the Brits aren't going to take the death of their democracy lying down.
Click to expand...
This had been Johnson's backers endgame all along. They aren't going to give up now when the prize is so close.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Right. The Angevin Dynasty were Norman French who acquired the English Crown. Angevin refers to their heritage and center of political gravity in Anjou, France.
Click to expand...

And it's a big mistake to consider Medieval Europe in terms of Modern Nation States. It was much more about dynastic power and which Dynasty held what, rather then the modern concept of a "Nation".
In the end, the 100 years war was not so much a war between England and France,but a war between competing Dynasties both of which held claims to the same lands.
 
jimbob said:
In theory, the PM advises the monarch, and she has to approve any act of parliament by signing it into law.

It's just that the last time the monarch went against Parliament, he was deposed, and the previous monarch was executed after being indicted for treason.
Click to expand...
Though Cromwell, who was instrumental in overthrowing King Charles, had his own problems with Parliament, which ended with his pretty much disbanding it.
His speech right before doing so is a classic of political invective.

"You have been sitting here too long for any good you are doing.You are a stink in the nostrils of the nation. In the name of God, go".
 
Vixen said:
Didn't France leave? The title of monarchs used to include 'King/Queen of England, Scotland,Wales, Northern Ireland and France'. Maybe it was wishful thinking, or just a small area of France. Brittany or something. It was 'our' first colony iirc.
Click to expand...

The Kingdom of France was never a part of the UK or under the rule of the English monarch. They tried to press their illegitimate claim through war during the 100 years war, which they eventually lost, but at no point was the English ever ruling France. They ruled large parts of what would become France, but their claim was always contested and they were unable to seize control of the entire kingdom.
 
jimbob said:
In theory, the PM advises the monarch, and she has to approve any act of parliament by signing it into law.

It's just that the last time the monarch went against Parliament, he was deposed, and the previous monarch was executed after being indicted for treason.
Click to expand...

Wow . Bob was unaware. Surprise.
 
Nessie said:
IIRC, the Normans invaded and conquered England (1066, Harrying of the North) which meant that they colonised England, but still had land in France. They then settled in England and in effect became English, so if anything their colony was now the Norman land in France, until King John lost it all by the 1200s.
Click to expand...

I think it's really inaccurate to describe it as them "colonizing" anything. It's not like they imported hundreds of thousands of Norman's after they took over.
 
Arcade22 said:
I think it's really inaccurate to describe it as them "colonizing" anything. It's not like they imported hundreds of thousands of Norman's after they took over.
Click to expand...
I think the correct term is they ruled. A prettier way of saying it is they "reigned."

Many of the more powerful magnates with land in both places still retained their French identity, but many of the more local barons were integrated with Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian (in the Danelaw) families within a few generations that became the cornerstone of "English" heritage and identity.

"Standard disclaimer about history being oversimplified here."
 
lomiller said:
Because power doesn’t belong to the party leader, it belongs to Parliament. As a rough analogy in the US this is equivalent to the President suspending congress so he exercise congressional powers without them there to say otherwise.
Click to expand...


Trump has that covered.

He's got McConnell stonewalling in the Senate to keep any bills that might inconvenience him from even being considered, while he does does end runs around powers constitutionally delegated to Congress with bogus "executive actions".

It amounts to the same thing.

So don't feel lonely.
 
ceptimus said:
There's one scheduled for Saturday called for by ex-Newsnight reporter Paul Mason, and the BBC were diligent in broadcasting the video of his call on Newsnight last night, complete with F-bomb, so as to ensure as many as possible turn out.
Click to expand...

Good. I am particularly happy some people in the media are getting involved, as they were largely responsible for this mess in the first place.
 
Last edited:
With two months to go before a likely no-deal Brexit, it looks like the government have decided to (appear to) take negotiations seriously:

Boris Johnson has promised a renewed effort to secure a deal with the EU before the Brexit deadline.

The UK's Brexit negotiators will now meet their EU counterparts twice a week next month, in the run-up to a crucial summit on 17 to 18 October.
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49515489

Pathetic :mad:
 
The Don said:
With two months to go before a likely no-deal Brexit, it looks like the government have decided to (appear to) take negotiations seriously:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49515489

Pathetic :mad:
Click to expand...

Apparently someone blinked. Again.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...news?page=with:block-5d3aeb6b8f08cf92bb777755

Take that as good news. It is probable BJ will be backed into a corner, facing a catastrophic no deal for which the country is not prepared or else support the WA he repudiated.

Any similarities with the Greek bailout referendum may not be entirely coincidential. We know how that happened: all key Greek actors were out in a few years. This is how you kill an idea.

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
McHrozni said:
Apparently someone blinked. Again.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...news?page=with:block-5d3aeb6b8f08cf92bb777755

Take that as good news. It is probable BJ will be backed into a corner, facing a catastrophic no deal for which the country is not prepared or else support the WA he repudiated.

Any similarities with the Greek bailout referendum may not be entirely coincidential. We know how that happened: all key Greek actors were out in a few years. This is how you kill an idea.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Your linked story is from around 5 weeks ago.

Nothing has changed in the interim, Boris Johnson is demanding that the backstop is removed and the EU is open to proposals, but it's up to the UK to come up with a viable alternative.
 
The Don said:
Your linked story is from around 5 weeks ago.

Nothing has changed in the interim, Boris Johnson is demanding that the backstop is removed and the EU is open to proposals, but it's up to the UK to come up with a viable alternative.
Click to expand...

I didn't pick the best article to cite. My point is this: UK demands backstop to be abandoned and EU said "come up with a viable alternative and we can talk". British negotiators are coming to EU to discuss alternatives. In the meantime EU made no committment whatsoever. Any failure would be BJs.

My take is that some other form of the Irish backstop will result in the end. There are options still: a long, very long time limit perhaps (10 years, if it ended with a border poll, more otherwise) would perhaps be viable, or else a NI-only backstop and screw the DUP, or else a longer transition period. Given the situation those have a non-zero chance of passing. BJ has about six weeks to negotiate, that's twelve meetings. I don't expect notable progress in the first ten meetings, but desperation could be the order of the day afterwards.

Incidentally, suppose there is a successful VONC one week from today. What happens then?

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom