I am and for the record, a constitutional elected head of state would have the same power. Come on G, she either has a meaningful role or she doesn't and if the former is true, let's elect one instead and if the latter is true, get rid
It would be interesting if she actually refused to see how the extremists reacted to it.
Of course not - she cannot intervene on government advice
What you actually need to ask yourself is why the opposition are not trying to bring Johnson down and form a government with Corbyn at the helm rather than some dodgy back door coup which I doubt would actually mean anything anyway
Johnson will have 14 days from the vote to try and overturn it. If he fails to do that I’m not sure he’ll even have a say in when the next general election will be as he’ll no longer be PM so I’m not sure how he’ll be able to delay it until November. I think you’re possibly wrong. Again.
Johnson wants a VONC. He wants an election run on “these bastards are stopping Brexit”
Because that would also be painted as a coup, in fact it already has been, by certain sections of the press.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just mind blowing - she can just turn round and quote the parliament act which bid the way constitutionally to stop it otherwise you are accepting a monarch can decide on any piece of legislation and unilaterally reject it
What you actually need to ask yourself is why the opposition are not trying to bring Johnson down and form a government with Corbyn at the helm rather than some dodgy back door coup which I doubt would actually mean anything anyway
All legislation requires royal assent. Proroguing of Parliament must have royal assent also. If you're saying that the monarch should never go against these acts even if they are clearly to the country's detriment then really, there is no point having the monarch there. But if you're arguing that the Queen does have meaningful powers, why are we deciding this by birth? There aren't enough MPs supportive of a Corbyn government in the Commons to make it work. Another election might produce that but with Johnson suspending Parliament there's no physical way of achieving the no confidence vote.
Honestly G, for such a pompous prick you get so much wrong
It wouldn’t as it’s a democratic process - motion of no confidence agreed and the majority of MPs agree in 14 days Corbyn can form a working majority in parliament
I’m not getting anything wrong. The constitutional experts have been saying this for weeks - the parliament sits for a whole week before suspension. Explain to me why in that time a no confidence motion cannot be made?
We all know why - Corbyn has zero mandate to deliver a government so he’s given up on an election idea and is trying a route which is equally as constitutionaly dangerous as suspension
I’ve said nothing wrong and seriously if you spouted what you are saying on any phone in regarding this issue you’d be laughed at
You think that will matter?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You've claimed that the only way to get an early election is by a no confidence vote-wrong
You've claimed that the Queen can't deny Johnson's request-wrong
You've claimed that Corbyn needs to form an alternative government from the existing MPs-we all know he couldn't
You've claimed that a week is enough time to debate and vote on the Queen's speech and debate and vote on no confidence, along with any other legislation the Tories want to ram through in that time.
You never admit when you're wrong even when it's objective and right in front of you. You still probably can't admit how wrong your prediction was in 2017
What of course the opposition could do rather than seek further unpopular delays I’d suggest the government bring back the original withdrawal agreement and all agree to support it
Corbyn’s route of VONC and temp government is actually the ONLY route to stop a no-deal Brexit if Boris wants to pursue it - in this parliament at least.
So it come down to those who say he can’t command a majority - what do you want more?
Sigh - I’m not wrong on point one - the election would be post Brexit which is why it’s avoided - the clue is the word early - show me please in the parliament act where a date has to be 5 weeks - not even withstanding the basic point you are expected the elected government to help a rag tag bunch of opponents who couldn’t even agree on what to have for lunch
Your lack of knowledge on a constitutional monarch is embarrassing - on that you are an hysterical sixth former - it’s not happening - it can’t happen.
A no confidence motion can easily meet the time frame. It’s being avoided as they know they cannot form a government
Show me the legal basis for denying the monarch's ability to block Johnson's move. There isn't one.
The only actual resolution for this is another referendum-Johnson's insanity versus remain, and have it legally binding. If you and your Johnson fan boys vote in enough numbers it will still happen
I see commentators think the plan is to tighten the deadline while creating a new parliamentary session so the WA can be voted on again. Remarkable considering that they’ve put so much effort into trashing the WA and talking up no deal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again it’s just immature. There has not been a rejection since 1708 - the purpose of a constitutional monarch is to be above politics. The minute that line is crossed would create a far bigger constitutional crises than a weeks suspension - the point of parliament is to have processes to deal with this which it has
Johnson is the prime minister. The real truth is there are not even enough Corbyn fan boys in his own party to support him and that’s the issue isn’t it? A no confidence motion can be delivered on day one - that’s the end of parliament suspension - it’s hilarious that republicans are urging the queen to act as a legislative head of state as they can’t even command enough people to stop Johnson through parliament. Perhaps we should just absolve it and go back to a monarchy ruling the country - dintiu want UK bring back Henry Viii?
Well I never - what a surprise
Could be a good move but can only see it happening under a caretaker government, but then too many would prefer 2nd ref.
For what it’s worth although, as leader of the opposition, Corbyn has the best claim to head up a caretaker government it’s too political sensitive to have him at the helm as he’s seen as too left wing. The right wing press would have a melt down. It would be more sensible to put a moderate Tory in charge.
This is partly why I think there’s no way out of no deal. Whatever happens to try and prevent it the right wing press will scream “coup” and the public will buy it. Combating populism is difficult.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No Tony the parties all have in those 14 days an opportunity to form a government - failure to do results in the sitting PM deciding an election date
I wasn’t wrong the first time either as an election timed at a date post October will not ever get a 66% majority as this ends the issue
Jeremy Corbyn can form a government and stop this if there is enough will
Johnson wants a VONC. He wants an election run on “these bastards are stopping Brexit”
Again it’s just immature. There has not been a rejection since 1708 - the purpose of a constitutional monarch is to be above politics. The minute that line is crossed would create a far bigger constitutional crises than a weeks suspension - the point of parliament is to have processes to deal with this which it has
Johnson is the prime minister. The real truth is there are not even enough Corbyn fan boys in his own party to support him and that’s the issue isn’t it? A no confidence motion can be delivered on day one - that’s the end of parliament suspension - it’s hilarious that republicans are urging the queen to act as a legislative head of state as they can’t even command enough people to stop Johnson through parliament. Perhaps we should just absolve it and go back to a monarchy ruling the country - dintiu want UK bring back Henry Viii?
Johnson wants a VONC. He wants an election run on “these bastards are stopping Brexit”
You’re still wrong. If no body can form a government within those 14 days a general election is called and parliament is dissolved with an election being held 25 days later. I’m yet to see a set of circumstances where Boris gets to name the date, especially after a vote of no confidence.
Everything is unprecedented until it happens and of course, this discussion is overlooking that Johnson is supplanting the 'democracy' he claims to care about. You keep parroting 'the monarch must be above politics' but then you're really arguing that there isn't any practical need for a monarch in the first place. If all they are to do is say 'yes' to illegal invasions of Iraq and blatant abuses of power then really what is their purpose?
It's clear for all to see that a no deal Brexit will leave the country worse off and that your hero is putting everything to one side to force it through. The smug arrogance stinks from miles away
Their purpose is to preserve our democracy and prevent a presidential system of government
Democracy preserved by having an unelected head of state and an unelected upper house-got it
There’s another possibility. Defections and resignations from the Tory party. How many Tory MP’s need to do either to trigger an election?
If people want No-Deal stopped they have to back Corbyn. There is no other route. This will at least expose real motives.
The elected representatives are in parliament and 83% of the public voted for parties committed to delivering an exit from the European Union
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?