Someone Tell Macca He Can't Sing...
News1 min ago
Does The Treachery Of The V B Q Know No Bounds?
74 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, I saw your post, and I utterly disagree. It would in any case set a damaging precedent to return to that sort of attitude to Parliament. Why not prorogue it more or less every time the Opposition dared to voted against something that the PM likes?
Besides which, this obsession that the only way to uphold democracy is to force through a No Deal exit (never mind the fact that it would have been done through undemocratic means) is utter nonsense.
Besides which, this obsession that the only way to uphold democracy is to force through a No Deal exit (never mind the fact that it would have been done through undemocratic means) is utter nonsense.
//judge, can you have a go at my question 16:16:
"What specifically would be the content of a legal device to stop brexit even if they did get control of the time table? "//
Exactly as before with the Letwin/Cooper process, 3Ts. Then, a bill was introduced forcing the Prime Minister to go begging to Brussels (or Strasbourg, wherever the senior apparatchiks happened to be stationed that week) requesting an extension to A50. Something similar to that will be introduced, the Parliamentary process being aided and abetted by an arch-Remainer Speaker. Rest assured, there is no way that a Remainer Parliament will allow a “No Deal” departure. All they are intent on doing is to refuse to countenance any form of departure whatsoever on the grounds that all (or rather, both) options are unpalatable. I’d dearly love to be proved wrong and will be the first to admit my mistake (with absolute delight). But I don’t think I’ll have to.
"What specifically would be the content of a legal device to stop brexit even if they did get control of the time table? "//
Exactly as before with the Letwin/Cooper process, 3Ts. Then, a bill was introduced forcing the Prime Minister to go begging to Brussels (or Strasbourg, wherever the senior apparatchiks happened to be stationed that week) requesting an extension to A50. Something similar to that will be introduced, the Parliamentary process being aided and abetted by an arch-Remainer Speaker. Rest assured, there is no way that a Remainer Parliament will allow a “No Deal” departure. All they are intent on doing is to refuse to countenance any form of departure whatsoever on the grounds that all (or rather, both) options are unpalatable. I’d dearly love to be proved wrong and will be the first to admit my mistake (with absolute delight). But I don’t think I’ll have to.
jim; //Why not prorogue it more or less every time the Opposition dared to voted against something that the PM likes? //
That is an absurd deduction. It is nothing to do with the opposition, or indeed the government. It is to do with what the British people want, and what they voted for in a democratic election and it is beholden on the government to carry it through, ideally with a sensible deal and if not reluctantly without one, but carry it through they must.
That is an absurd deduction. It is nothing to do with the opposition, or indeed the government. It is to do with what the British people want, and what they voted for in a democratic election and it is beholden on the government to carry it through, ideally with a sensible deal and if not reluctantly without one, but carry it through they must.
jim; Straight from the horse's mouth.
No problem;
https:/
No problem;
https:/
//SNP MP David Linden (Glasgow East) said: “If, as appears to be the case, Mr Johnson does become the next prime minister - of which the Attorney General is a supporter - will he support Mr Johnson’s view of refusing to rule out proroguing Parliament for a no deal Brexit, which would surely be an act of constitutional vandalism? “//
No more "constitutional vandalism" than the continued refusal of the Commons to implement the result of the referendum for which they voted five to one and for which 80% of them gained seats at the last election on such a pledge,
No more "constitutional vandalism" than the continued refusal of the Commons to implement the result of the referendum for which they voted five to one and for which 80% of them gained seats at the last election on such a pledge,
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.