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

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
Is anything stopping the PMs from meeting and having meaningful votes?
Click to expand...

Yes, there are a limited number of days in which parliament is in session (exacerbated by prorogation) and in order to have a meaningful vote they need to secure time to table motion(s), have a debate and then vote on it. They also need to defeat any spoiling and/or delaying tactics from hardline Brexiteers.
 
The Don said:
Yes, there are a limited number of days in which parliament is in session (exacerbated by prorogation) and in order to have a meaningful vote they need to secure time to table motion(s), have a debate and then vote on it. They also need to defeat any spoiling and/or delaying tactics from hardline Brexiteers.
Click to expand...

Lolmiller was just saying parliament was the highest authority. Then what is actually stopping parliament from showing up and working?
 
The remainer MPs could all assemble somewhere else in their own time - like they did at Church House - and have a series of votes amongst themselves to try and get their act together. Maybe even Speaker Bercow would condescend to go along and act as chairman.

Of course, they could have done this at any time - such as during their current one-month long holiday - or even *gasp* do it on a weekend.

They prefer to posture and rail about the "great constitutional outrage" committed by the government. The fact that, with the aid of Remainer Bercow, they're about to ignore all the constitutional norms next week to take over parliament, is "different" and completely acceptable in their minds.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Lolmiller was just saying parliament was the highest authority. Then what is actually stopping parliament from showing up and working?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean :confused:

Are you asking why parliament cannot ignore the prorogation ?

Are you asking why parliament cannot sit 24/7 between now and 31 October apart from when it is prorogued ?

Are you asking a different question entirely ?
 
ceptimus said:
The remainer MPs could all assemble somewhere else in their own time - like they did at Church House - and have a series of votes amongst themselves to try and get their act together. Maybe even Speaker Bercow would condescend to go along and act as chairman.

Of course, they could have done this at any time - such as during their current one-month long holiday - or even *gasp* do it on a weekend.

They prefer to posture and rail about the "great constitutional outrage" committed by the government. The fact that, with the aid of Remainer Bercow, they're about to ignore all the constitutional norms next week to take over parliament, is "different" and completely acceptable in their minds.
Click to expand...

Why can't they meet at the same building they always meet?
 
ceptimus said:
Losers tend to resort to petitions when they're powerless to do anything else. Most petitions achieve very little other than providing a morsel of comfort to those who've signed them: it gives them the feeling that they've at least done something.

When things are going your way, there's little or no incentive to bother signing petitions congratulating the way things are going.
Click to expand...

Except that we hear lot of noisy "why can't we just leave/No Deal now" sentiment all the time. People sign petitions when they want something to happen. The relative paucity of signatures for pro-immediate/No Deal petitions demonstrates how few people actually want either.
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
I'm not sure what you mean :confused:

Are you asking why parliament cannot ignore the prorogation ?

Are you asking why parliament cannot sit 24/7 between now and 31 October apart from when it is prorogued ?

Are you asking a different question entirely ?
Click to expand...

We can start with the first one. People seem to agree that they are the highest authority. Then the person. Who requested and the person who granted prorogation is a lower authority.

What is stopping parliament from just ignoring prorogation?
 
BobTheCoward said:
We can start with the first one. People seem to agree that they are the highest authority. Then the person. Who requested and the person who granted prorogation is a lower authority.

What is stopping parliament from just ignoring prorogation?
Click to expand...

Parliament is the highest authority, but it can only exercise that authority when it is in session. Prorogation means that Parliament is out of session for that period.
 
The Don said:
I've repeatedly said that this is the result of austerity, not immigration. That's why places with few immigrants, are experiencing the same problems.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we know that the places with the least immigrants actually fear immigration the most.

Seeing stuff like this on CBeebies is "Meh!" in London, but apparently terrifying in Ripon.

 
Last edited:
The Don said:
Parliament is the highest authority, but it can only exercise that authority when it is in session. Prorogation means that Parliament is out of session for that period.
Click to expand...

I'm getting confused around the highest authority part.

Highest authority: "we are in session"

Lower authority: "I asked another lower authority to make you out of session. You are out of session now."

Highest authority: "Nope, I reject. You don't have authority over me. That is what 'highest' means."

This is where I get confused about parliamentary sovereignty. How can a lower authority put the highest authority out of session?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I'm getting confused around the highest authority part.

Highest authority: "we are in session"
Click to expand...

They have to be in session to decide anything. It can't be done by a mass of tweets, can it?

If this were not the case then, during the summer recess (say) a large group could get together, claim to be the House of Commons in action and pass all sorts of weird legislation.

Similar limitations apply, no doubt, in your own country.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I'm getting confused around the highest authority part.

Highest authority: "we are in session"

Lower authority: "I asked another lower authority to make you out of session. You are out of session now."

Highest authority: "Nope, I reject. You don't have authority over me. That is what 'highest' means."

This is where I get confused about parliamentary sovereignty. How can a lower authority put the highest authority out of session?
Click to expand...

I don't understand your confusion.
 
GlennB said:
They have to be in session to decide anything. It can't be done by a mass of tweets, can it?

If this were not the case then, during the summer recess (say) a large group could get together, claim to be the House of Commons in action and pass all sorts of weird legislation.

Similar limitations apply, no doubt, in your own country.
Click to expand...

I don't live in a country where any unit is regarded as the highest authority. So when you say parliament has the highest authority, I would think they (whatever constitutes a quorum to be called a parliament) can meet and vote whenever and wherever they please.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I don't live in a country where any unit is regarded as the highest authority. So when you say parliament has the highest authority, I would think they (whatever constitutes a quorum to be called a parliament) can meet and vote whenever and wherever they please.
Click to expand...

"Parliament" can't possibly mean "This group of MPs who emailed around and decided to meet on a summer Sunday afternoon in a pub garden", can it? There has to be a system to let them all know when parliament is in session and where.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom