Brexit: Parliament Suspended

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Aug 29, 2019.

  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,211
    the irony seems 2 fold
    on one hand he is expected to deliver the democratically voted referendum
    on the other he is expected to stop the country from crashing out.
    yet none of the politicians can agree on something that the EU agree on.

    my guess is the dead lock will lead to a negotiated stall of remaining in while some type of compromise is drafted.
    however
    that still means mp's must agree to something and that doesn't seem to be likely.

    thomas cook is a wake up call to the potential impact of a hard brexit

    who is paying for the thomas cook customers to get home ?
    working class brits who cant afford a holiday abroard out of their health and retirement money ?
    its all a bit of a mess
    surely the insurance companys should be paying for it ?

    how many of those thomas cook brits are tory voters and how many voted for brexit ?
    curious position
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,021
    [#brexitbrexitborexit | #fefifowrecksit]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Per BBC↱:

    Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.

    Mr Johnson suspended - or prorogued - Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but judges said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October.

    Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme."

    The PM said he "profoundly disagreed" with the ruling but would "respect" it.

    A raft of MPs have now called for the prime minister to resign and some say they will attempt to force him out if he does not go of his accord.

    The question arises how fast Tories can dump a PM and install a new one, because a protracted dispute about Mr. Johnson's continued tenure will actually help hard brexit hardliners.

    Or so it seems from this side of the Pond.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    British Broadcasting Corporation. "Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule". BBC News. 24 September 2019. BBC.com. 24 September 2019. https://bbc.in/2mTAMZf
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,655
    U.K. Supreme court ruled suspension illegal. House speaker has called Parliament back.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,983
    https://liberalhistory.org.uk/history/william-ivs-dismissal-of-the-whig-administration-in-1834/
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2019
  8. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    The MP's don't mean anything to Corbyn but the delegates do (i.e. delegates of the various branches of the Labour party) because they are the ones who elect the leader and the MP's only get 1 vote. A majority of the Labour MP's are anti BREXIT while the party members and their delegates are pro BREXIT.

    That's real egalitarian democracy for you.
     
  9. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    Not quite, the Australian Governor General exercises the powers of the monarch only when the monarch is not present in Australia.
     
    Baldeee and exchemist like this.
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,632
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,632
    Actually I don't think this is right. Most Labour party members want to Remain. However the party leadership (Seumas Milne, Karie Murphy, i.e. the ones pulling Corbyn's strings) is worried that a fair chunk of the Labour electorate, especially in Northern cities, voted to Leave and they want to retain their votes at the forthcoming election. This puts them at odds with much of the Shadow Front Bench (notably Starmer, Thornberry and even McDonnell) who want a clear Remain policy, thinking that lack of clarity will be punished at the polls.

    The leadership, like a lot of the far left, have always been suspicious of the EU as a capitalist plot. They would be unable to usher in the paradise of state control that they would like to see, if the UK remains in the EU, due to the rules regarding government intervention and free competition - all the things Thatcher helped to bring about in the EU when she was PM! This accounts for Corbyn's notable pusillanimity during the 2016 Referendum campaign, which played a significant part in bringing about the vote to Leave. Labour totally failed to explain to working class voters how leaving would hurt their livelihoods. Whereas Cameron lazily assumed that Labour would get the vote out for Remain in the Labour strongholds.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2019
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,983
    How on earth did you come to that possibility?
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,093
    Section 3(2) of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011..

    Literally did away with the Royal prerogative to dissolve parliament as the reigning monarch sees fit if - if she so chooses.

    Section 6(1) of the Act only allows her to prorogue parliament.

    In other words, no, she cannot do this:

    And has not been able to do this since the 15th of September 2011.
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,632
    Because you posted it as a response to post 120.
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,983
    Thanks...
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,983
    oh ok... I see...
     
  17. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,895
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  18. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,895
    Learn something new every day.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,211
    any of those conservative MP's ?

    endless national elections is going to cost quite a lot of money.
    will the MP's pay for it out of their own salary's ?
    lol
    they get paid a weeks wages even if they only go to work for 1 day
    while business struggle and unemployment goes up

    BREXIT appears to have the hall marks of undoing the principals of Democratic parliament.

    when the average worker is struggling this xmass with more and more job losses the MP's will continue to get paid...

    as the British tourism industry starts to lose big money this xmass. its going to be quite interesting to see what if anything happens.
     
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,632
    An election is the recourse, in a system of representative democracy, when the government cannot get the legislature to sign off its programme, which is now the case in the UK. The costs of UK elections are relatively small and they are not run for the convenience of MPs, but for voters. So comments about MPs' salaries are out of place.

    Parliament will not vote Bozo out of office to start the election process, until it can be sure the UK runs no risk of crashing out of the EU without a deal. A PM can alter the date of the election. Bozo is likely to do this, so that the UK crashes out by default, while the election campaign is in progress, due to there being no government in office. Bozo has amply shown he is a liar, a cheat and a twister - and his Goebbels-like adviser even worse. So even if he gives his word he won't do that, nobody will trust him. Parliament needs to have this nailed down, before any election process can be risked.

    Bozo has shown last night he is going full Trump. He and his party are now trying to undermine in the public mind the legitimacy of both the judiciary and parliament. He is also using Trump tactics, saying deliberately outrageous things in the hope of goading his opponents into looking immoderate themselves. It is a strategy for dividing the country and reducing political discussion to an angry slanging match, exchanged using a currency of lies.

    This is the route to murder and dictatorship. I feel UK democracy is really under threat, now, in a way it never has been before in my lifetime. The funny thing is, for most of my life, most of us thought any such threat would come from the hotheads on the Left. I have been a Conservative voter most of my life, at least since university days. I cannot imagine I will ever vote Conservative again.
     
    Baldeee likes this.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,336
    Amen to that.

    We gave it a try a few years ago, but it didn't take. There was a strong conservative campaign against Australia becoming a republic. But, worse than that, a lot of people who most likely favoured the republican option over the monarchy still voted for the status quo because they didn't like the particular (minimalist) republican model that was being put forward.

    Unfortunately, a lot of Australians seem to be under the mistaken impression that having a directly-elected President with large amounts of executive power is a good idea. Apparently they haven't noticed what the United States is like.
     
  22. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,895
    I struggle to understand why from a political point of view, in that the Queen is pretty much just a figurehead and surely has zero political power anyway?

    As such, if one removes the figurehead, nothing actually need really change, should it?
    In the UK I can imagine that we would simply get rid of much of the pomp and ceremony, and possibly have an elected PM rather than them just being leader of the ruling government party.

    So I can understand the move to a republic on grounds of wanting to cut yourself away from old and outdated colonial thinking (if there is any much left other than ceremony), but from an actual political point of view, I just can’t really see that argument.

    Although maybe it would be seen as an opportunity to make actual meaningful political changes that aren’t otherwise possible while having QE II as monarch?

    (Apologies if sidetracking away from the main topic... feel free to slap it down as such)
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,336
    Baldeee:

    Figureheads are symbolic. The Queen, even though without power in Australia (only since 1986, by the way), is still Australia's official Head of State. Her official representative, the Governor General, does have some actual power, as proven by the GG's dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975.

    The proposal put to the Australia people at referendum - and rejected - was to substitute a President elected by members of Parliament for the Governor General. The President would retain the limited, but real, powers of the GG, and would replace the Queen as the official Head of State.

    Arguments were made at the time that there was some uncertainty about whether it would really be true that nothing would change in terms of the location of power. Conservatives, of course, ran a dual argument: (1) to replace the Queen as Head of State would be to dismiss the historical importance of Britain in Australia's history, to cut ties with the "mother country" etc. etc., and (2) If it ain't broke, don't fix it; don't risk an outcome whose consequences are not fully explained or understood. In other words, they appealed to a sense of tradition and loyalty - as conservatives do - and to fear - as conservatives do. And they won.

    In the aftermath, there has been a lot of debate among republicans as to what went wrong. The general consensus is that the vote was rushed. The move to a republic should have been handled in stages. In particular, a simple "yes/no" question should have been put to the people first - do you want a republic, or do you want to retain the monarchy? Once that was settled, then there could have been discussions of which model of a republic would work best for Australia. Instead, the question that was actually put was more like "Here is one model. Take it or leave it." The majority of the people chose to leave it, that time around.

    Another major problem is that the move to a republic did not have bipartisan support from the major political parties. Without that, the question became, for some, one of loyalty to one's preferred political party.

    I think it would be fair to say that most Australians, these days, would prefer for Australia to assert its identity as a truly independent nation, which doesn't really work if we retain a foreign monarch as our Head of State, even if s/he is only there as a figurehead.

    There is one other factor: a lot of Australians respect Queen Elisabeth II. While she remains on the British throne, there is unlikely to be another push for a republic. Once she dies, however, the issue will most likely be back on the political agenda. Next time, I think we'll probably see change.
     
    Baldeee likes this.

Share This Page