That maybe so, but it does underline the arrogance of Johnson and the government's flagrant disregard of parliament and process.
Government will attempt to prorogue Parliament
- Thread starter slyadams
- Start date
- Status
She doesn't vote, although she is entitled to vote. All the Royals in the line of succession don't vote by convention.
Also, its mind boggling how a new PM can be sworn in(if that's a thing) merely with a party vote ?
I thought that since she is not a citizen , and does not have a passport, she can't vote.
I guess she could take legal advice from from the attorney general (is it still Cox?)... Also isn't there an ongoing court case to prevent this happening (perhaps in Scottish courts if memory serves)
Times like this are the only times where demonstrations really mean something.
Because we vote for a local representative and the parties leader, becomes the Prime Minister.
Nobody expect party members and party MPs vote for the actual Prime Minister. You vote for your local MP.
It's not exactly a new thing, eg May, Brown for Labour etc...so three times in the last 12 years.
I've been reading up on it for the last few hours:
Parliament has not been prorogued by a government as a means of circumventing parliamentary opposition to government policy since 1948, when Parliament was prorogued following the Lords' opposition to the Parliament Bill. The Government could only bypass the Lords after a delay of three sessions. By proroguing Parliament, the Government could hold a special short parliamentary session, thereby speeding up the process for overriding the Lords.
The fact this hasn't been done since 1948 should indicate that the process is extremely rare and given it's being deployed by a newly elected Prime Minster should indicate that it's undemocratic. Naturally those in favour of Brexit will claim otherwise given they've been throwing the undemocratic line out for the past 2 years.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Banana republic.
How is it sneaky or conniving? It's the simplest of tricks that has been talked about for a year at least. It's just the sort of thing people who use "democracy" as a throwaway term would do. It shows the world exactly what Britain has become, and it shows Britain what Boris and his chumps have in store for it.
Actually, there is no objective measure by which you can say something is or isn’t undemocratic. It’s not black and white, there is a continuum. Also, something doesn’t have to be undemocratic to be an outrage.
It’s clear this is a move to bypass parliamentary oversight and scrutiny, which in my mind makes it unethical and on the wrong side of the democratic scale, even if it is entirely legal.
So. Who supports this move and why.
And who is fundamentally unhappy about it and why.
I am totally and fundamentally opposed to it for the following reasons.
1. It is obviously part of the desire for a no deal exit from the EU. And nothing at all to do with the Queens speach.
2. If leaving without a deal is such a good thing then why does Boris Johnson and his followers need to do this. Especially when that is the default position.
3. It can be argued that Boris Johnson has little or no mandate from the country to actually be our PM That being the case, he has no tangible mandate from the country to take control in such an autocratic and totally un-democratic manner.
EDIT.
4. Many people voted for Brexit on the basis of TAKING BACK CONTROL. So how does shutting down Parliament result in taking back control...
And who is fundamentally unhappy about it and why.
I am totally and fundamentally opposed to it for the following reasons.
1. It is obviously part of the desire for a no deal exit from the EU. And nothing at all to do with the Queens speach.
2. If leaving without a deal is such a good thing then why does Boris Johnson and his followers need to do this. Especially when that is the default position.
3. It can be argued that Boris Johnson has little or no mandate from the country to actually be our PM That being the case, he has no tangible mandate from the country to take control in such an autocratic and totally un-democratic manner.
EDIT.
4. Many people voted for Brexit on the basis of TAKING BACK CONTROL. So how does shutting down Parliament result in taking back control...
How much alcohol do I need to drink to become convinced that the executive shutting down the legislative to force it's way is not undemocratic?
Some people
Some people
Well democracy in the sense of us having a representative democracy would mean our elected officials getting to scrutinise and vote on policy. This is a move to prevent those actions and therefore it is undemocratic, it's not a debatable point.
That's different though. That time it was HoC vs HoL, the two houses of parliament against each other, not Govt vs Parliament. And only one of the two houses is elected.
Yes, I was questioning why it is allowed - was about to add 'by the constitution' but recalled that you don't happen to have one of those.
The mental gymnastics people are going through.How much alcohol do I need to drink to become convinced that the executive shutting down the legislative to force it's way is not undemocratic?
Some people
You know shit just got real when we've got the Green Party calling for people to take to the streets.
I guess with our system the party is eminent above the individual, so they can change their leaders if they see fit. The lack of a written of constitution is somewhat overstated, in that loads of it has in reality been set down by legal precednt over the years, but it does also leave some grey areas.Tbf, when you have the government closing down parliamentary democracy to force through a democratic referendum result it is a bit of a headfeck.
It's long overdue to be honest and maybe will kick start some actual action. You only have to see the mindset of brexiteers above like WUM boy who just parrot the tory line, you expect it of government MPs of course but the fact you have a huge section of the public who will repeat the PR lines without thought shows there's no chance of engagement.
I can't imagine the protests will remain peaceful either.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If it was in France, we would be dismantling the country while wearing flashy attires.
Yeah the reaction from the public will show why Britain doesn't really have a constitutionIf it was in France, we would be dismantling the country while wearing flashy attires.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
True, I just don’t buy the argument because it’s technically possible, that makes it okay.
This is an utter joke.
Absolutely right.
Bear in mind that Boris Johnson actually voted to accept the WA. How the hell does he think that anyone with half a brain cell can believe a word he says.
Bring on Civil War II - "Things just got more civil."
I don’t understand how this is a good move for Johnson. Surely now he would lose both a VONC and also a GE?
Isn’t it an awful move in PR terms?
Isn’t it an awful move in PR terms?
It's different yes, but the process was still the same and it happened 61 years ago. Don't think people appreciate just how uncommon this is. I'm no history buff and don't have the time to find a more comparable situation (if there is one).
As Paul said, he can get away with it cos the Brexiteers just blame parliament's intransigence. With Johnson, Brexit, Trump and Bolsonaro, Idiocracy is now.
Think its actually fair enough for a change.
Id genuinely be surprised if there arent some soon. People wont stand for this.
I mean fairplay.
There is always a tweet...
Wait until he declares the UK as a one party state.
Petition is off and running, wonder if it can beat the last one...
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157
Actually Boris would probably love to waste another day of pariliament to debate it.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157
Actually Boris would probably love to waste another day of pariliament to debate it.
- Status