Asking the monarch to suspend parliament so you can get your way is our process?
Grendel put your political preference aside and think this through.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter jimmyhillsfanclub
- Start date
Asking the monarch to suspend parliament so you can get your way is our process?
Grendel put your political preference aside and think this through.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’re really not grasping the magnitude of this situation. You don’t understand what you’re giving up by allowing this to happen.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No the process as I’m trying to explain is that only the government can pass legislation - yesterday there was a coup to try and prevent the elected government carrying out its constitutional duties.
Sorry that’s the correct process. So the opposition can do one thing - a no confidence motion - they know they will
Lose so are trying to go against the protocol established
Then the process is to call an election and see if the people elect new representatives. Not to ask the monarch to suspend the commons.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Backbone is being unwilling to debate no deal in a sovereign parliament
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
No its genuinely got to the point where people don't care anymore, we've sat back and watched MP after MP stick a big finger up to their constituents... Did they understand what that was doing to politics? Did they understand what that was doing to the division and anger in this country? Did they even care?
Time to put the clowns back in their place
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
That's the thing with the Brexit lot though, they really don't care. After No Deal happens and everything turns to shit, they will blame the EU, Corbyn, Caroline Lucas, in fact, anyone apart from themselves. And all the while people like JRM will make even more money off the backs of us all.
This is a democratic outrage.
I think Grendel is correct though. It should be a no confidence vote (not some dodgy unprecedented parliamentary manoeuvre).
I think this will flush out positions ie No confidence vote. Either a government of national unity (without corbyn), an election or a stronger position for Johnson to negotiate with the EU.
People need to remember article 50 was passed by a significant majority in the house. The withdrawal agreement which would have avoided a ‘No Deal’ was rejected three times. MPs took control and tried to offer up alternatives, none of which had a majority. As I said earlier they’ve been a disgrace
I think this will flush out positions ie No confidence vote. Either a government of national unity (without corbyn), an election or a stronger position for Johnson to negotiate with the EU.
People need to remember article 50 was passed by a significant majority in the house. The withdrawal agreement which would have avoided a ‘No Deal’ was rejected three times. MPs took control and tried to offer up alternatives, none of which had a majority. As I said earlier they’ve been a disgrace
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Correct and again this can be stopped by Jeremy Corbyn following process
The mandate for leave was on an improved deal though. Following your logic Brexit should be called off.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
MPs represent all of their constituents, not just those who vote a certain way. I voted Leave but the idea of proroguing parliament to force through a no deal, the consequences of which could be devastating for some people is anti-democratic in the extreme. It is not how our democracy functions.
We live in representative parliamentary democracy, not a direct democracy. Proroguing parliament is literally taking away your representation all at the alter of a vote that took place over 3 years ago.
I can only hope the simpletons and their families cheering this on don't suffer as result of a no deal brexit, and don't blame the EU or perceived 'remainers' for it.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Why on earth are we still talking about 'negotation' with the EU - it isn't happening. It's a fallacy.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Call an election then.
They didn’t think they had the numbers yesterday. They might have them today.
I think Johnson knows the EU are refusing to budge in discussions because of potential parliamentary manoeuvres which will delay leaving (or potentially end up revoking article 50). As I said I think this step is to flush out everyone’s positions.
I don’t really like what’s happening (just doesn't feel right) but then again, another delay, then what ?!! The matter needs to be brought to a head/conclusion, I kind of wish it wasn’t being done in this way though.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
A plan is already in place to seek an interim order to prevent parliament being suspended.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Agreed and that’s for the opposition to do
We’ll soon find out Fernando. The fact is if everyone believes there’s no more negotiation and everyone (apart from the extreme/ERG) is desperate to avoid a No Deal, why didn’t MPs vote through the WA then ???
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Why is it?
The issue is for all the blister and talk of creating a stronger hand there’s very little room for manoeuvre in the negotiations for various pragmatic reasons.
People need to get it out of their heads that the EU can give us a better deal if only they wanted to or we negotiated harder. There are too many issues in Brexit that conflict with reality.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Er because that’s parliamentary protocol? The government are not able to do so under the fixed parliament act
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So how did May do it?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Because it can also be done if 2/3 of the Commons agree to the motion. Corbyn wanted one as well so it happened. G has it wrong yet again
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Let’s see if our wonderful monarch puts a stop to the clown’s shenanigans
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I think she may be powerless to do anything. This hasn’t happened since the 1640’s.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Correct. The government can put it to the commons to a vote and a two thirds majority will trigger a general election which is what May did. The opposition can’t do this. The opposition can only force a general election through a vote of no confidence.
So when Grendull says it’s for the opposition to call an election because of the fixed term parliament act he’s being disingenuous. As is Boris when he claimed he wants and believes that he can do a deal. If he had the conviction of his words he’d be looking to call for a democratic vote in Parliament to put parliament to the democratic vote of the people. Instead a PM that only 0.3% of the population voted for is doing the least democratic thing he can.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Not wrong though is it? As he won’t want one this time instead he’s trying a coup against protocol
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
It would be the ideal solution but I could see it ending up a hung parliament again.
A few millionaires want to ask the monarch to intervene in the processes of the commons so they can create the havoc required to sell the NHS to an America reality TV star and his mates. And half the nation will applaud them. Imagine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought your original point was he should call a VoNC in order to follow process so how would it be a coup?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
A) you are wrong.
B) the labour parties official line is that a general election is their preferred solution even above a second referendum. So again you’re wrong.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Which actually could deliver a more functional government than the current one.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
All is not lost, we have a hero in our midst.
House of Commons Speaker John Bercow responds to the PM's statement: “I have had no contact from the government, but if the reports that it is seeking to prorogue Parliament are confirmed, this move represents a constitutional outrage.
“However it is dressed up, it is blindingly obvious that the purpose of prorogation now would be to stop Parliament debating Brexit and performing its duty in shaping a course for the country," he says.
House of Commons Speaker John Bercow responds to the PM's statement: “I have had no contact from the government, but if the reports that it is seeking to prorogue Parliament are confirmed, this move represents a constitutional outrage.
“However it is dressed up, it is blindingly obvious that the purpose of prorogation now would be to stop Parliament debating Brexit and performing its duty in shaping a course for the country," he says.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Can she actually say "no"? I mean constitutionally?
I assume she’ll want to take the path of least interference but as you point out that might mean not stopping them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk