Twitter LinkOriginally Posted by Unheard Of
Who knows
Twitter Link
Who knows
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You posted those after I applauded the bits you quoted about filibustering etc
No I compared it to a Presidential veto originally. Many countries have the executive have a veto, but that can be overriden by the legislature. Ours would be no different.The point here is that the reports indicate Johnson is considering trying to withhold royal assent for a bill that has been successfully passed by Parliament. You tried to justify this utterly fucked-up anti-democratic tactic by lying about Blair doing the same thing, in order to trivialize what would in reality be an extraordinary and extremely questionable measure. Blair did no such thing. What he did do may certainly be regarded as being politically suspect, but it isn't even remotely in the same league as trying to get the queen to withhold royal assent for a bill that has been passed.
It isn't tested and if it came to it [it won't] it would likely go to the courts but royal assent is recommended by the PM not the legislature. To withhold that, to veto that, would be an extreme move but one the PM as long as he has confidence of the house could reasonably do. If the legislature isn't happy they can no confidence the PM and then they'd have no right to veto the bill.
That's not nihilism.
An election will resolve the mess May left behind, or let Britain change course if that's what we choose. Funny that those who reject the referendum seem rather worried about an election - almost as if they are worried the public may not back them again!?
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/...ueens-consent/
Queen's Consent applies to this new bill, the executive could unilaterally withhold Queen's Consent.
Twitter Link
But by making this a confidence issue Boris has trumped that. Let the British voters decide.
The link from which those screenshots were taken is literally in the text you quoted in your post, but I know that you often don't read, so I made sure to provide, in a follow-up post, the text of that article, which recounts Gove's interview wherein he refused to commit to abiding by a law passed by Parliament.
What you actually said:No I compared it to a Presidential veto originally.
I understand not being able to remember one's own statements from months ago, but this is literally something you said hours ago, and the text is right there on your screen. Blair did not get the Queen to veto a bill by withholding royal assent, and so his actions do not constitute a "much more recent precedent" for withholding royal assent, nor does withholding
Really stretching the term "reasonable" when you use it to describe a measure regarded as being so unreasonable that it hasn't been used in 300 years, even in the most politically fraught & toxic climates.It isn't tested and if it came to it [it won't] it would likely go to the courts but royal assent is recommended by the PM not the legislature. To withhold that, to veto that, would be an extreme move but one the PM as long as he has confidence of the house could reasonably do. If the legislature isn't happy they can no confidence the PM and then they'd have no right to veto the bill.
What utter drivel. Criticism of yet another snap election stems from the accurate assessment that its purpose is to waste valuable time, to obstruct Parliament and to browbeat MPs in an unprecedented manner. If you're so confident, why are you so afraid of putting No Deal vs. Remain to another popular vote? It's almost as if you're worried the public won't be so stupid the second time around.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Follw-up posts made after my applause. Then you said that's what I was applauding.
Not so unreasonable that it hasn't been used in 300 years, so redundant it hasn't been needed in 300 years.Really stretching the term "reasonable" when you use it to describe a measure regarded as being so unreasonable that it hasn't been used in 300 years, even in the most politically fraught & toxic climates.
When was the last time the government wanted to veto legislation the Commons had passed against the government's will? I can't recall it ever happening. Even 300 years ago the Commons hadn't passed the bill against the government's will - the government wanted the bill, then in-between Parliament passing it and the Queen granting assent news arrived which changed things so the government advised the Queen to withhold assent which she duly did.
The purpose of an election if it happens isn't to waste time, it is to get a Parliament that will make a decision - one that this Parliament has singularly failed to do.What utter drivel. Criticism of yet another snap election stems from the accurate assessment that its purpose is to waste valuable time, to obstruct Parliament and to browbeat MPs in an unprecedented manner. If you're so confident, why are you so afraid of putting No Deal vs. Remain to another popular vote? It's almost as if you're worried the public won't be so stupid the second time around.
Which isn't just me saying it, everybody reasonable in this thread has made the same point about this Parliament. If Boris throws out the Gaukeward Squad then at least the public knows where the Tories stand and if they grant us a majority we can actually get on with the job. If they don't, the public has made its choice. Either way, bring it on.
The link to the article was literally in the part you quoted you ridiculous man. But if you wish to stick to your story, you have a chance now to disavow Gove's disgraceful refusal to commit to following the law. Please disavow him here:
____________________________
Have you been asleep for the past couple of years serious questionNot so unreasonable that it hasn't been used in 300 years, so redundant it hasn't been needed in 300 years.
When was the last time the government wanted to veto legislation the Commons had passed against the government's will? I can't recall it ever happening.
Bullshit, and not even particularly persuasive bullshit. The purpose of an Oct 14 election is nothing but political vandalism for personal gain. It would obstruct Parliament's and civil servants' work on Brexit and on preparations for the possible outcomes, both due to the need to campaign and due to purdah. Which, admittedly, the govt. apparently intends to ignore, because, once again, this govt. has no respect for neither law nor convention, and believes it would be appropriate for a govt. to spend a hundred million pounds of public funds on its own re-election campaign in the middle of a political crisis.The purpose of an election if it happens isn't to waste time, it is to get a Parliament that will make a decision - one that this Parliament has singularly failed to do.
This really is a govt. of liars, for fools. Now we have a credible report that the so-called negotiations are just a sham, contrary to the assurances provided by ministers:
Twitter Link
They lie about what they know and when they learned it:
Twitter Link
(similar to when they lied about the leaked Yellowhammer report)
They lie about "alternative arrangements":
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...eset-by-issues
They are liars, and it is genuinely sad to see you debasing yourself in their service in such a pathetic manner. Yuck.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You couldn't be arsed to quote even a single word from that link and instead quoted from The Times which is behind a paywall so I didn't click on the link because I don't have a paywall subscription. If you wanted to quote from the Guardian then try actually bothering to quote something rather than posting about The Times then giving a link to a completely different story from what you've quoted like some crazed schizophrenic.
As for Gove, I would say that the government has to follow the law, no ifs no buts. I will also note that despite the spin and furore Gove never said anything to the contrary. He gave a classic politicians non-answer in simply saying repeatedly that he would 'wait and see' what any proposed legislation is before responding to it. There is nothing unreasonable in anything Gove said and politicians don't have to use the exact words or answer hypotheticals if they don't want to.
No.Have you been asleep for the past couple of years serious question
No, proroguation which is already scheduled will do that. An election is a different matter. An election means that when Parliament resumes we can do so with a set of MPs answering the publics concerns - and if the public wants Labour it has a choice, Johnson is literally putting his career on the line.Bullshit, and not even particularly persuasive bullshit. The purpose of an Oct 14 election is nothing but political vandalism for personal gain. It would obstruct Parliament's and civil servants' work on Brexit and on preparations for the possible outcomes, both due to the need to campaign and due to purdah. Which, admittedly, the govt. apparently intends to ignore, because, once again, this govt. has no respect for neither law nor convention, and believes it would be appropriate for a govt. to spend a hundred million pounds of public funds on its own re-election campaign in the middle of a political crisis.
Credible? Anonymous sources denied as categorical lies aren't credible unless you're completely vacuous and believing what you want to believe.This really is a govt. of liars, for fools. Now we have a credible report that the so-called negotiations are just a sham, contrary to the assurances provided by ministers
I'm sorry but you're being really dumb right now. If you believed that the Guardian link was about the same story as in the Times link, and you don't click on Times links because you know they're behind a paywall and beyond your reach, then you should've clicked the Guardian link. The reality is that you simply don't read.
Pathetic. The correct answer to "does the govt. intend to follow the law?" is "yes".As for Gove, I would say that the government has to follow the law, no ifs no buts. I will also note that despite the spin and furore Gove never said anything to the contrary. He gave a classic politicians non-answer in simply saying repeatedly that he would 'wait and see' what any proposed legislation is before responding to it. There is nothing unreasonable in anything Gove said and politicians don't have to use the exact words or answer hypotheticals if they don't want to.
You must have been, because the govt. has over the past few years lost a number of extremely important legislative battles against Parliament without getting the Queen to withhold assent.No.
That is not a foregone conclusion; there are at least three legal challenges to that decision. It is also a stupid objection; were Parliament to be prorogued, legislators would nevertheless be able to continue their preparatory work outside of Parliament, as would civil servants outside of Parliament (the people actually tasked with sorting out the mess created by this govt's political vandalism). A general election, in contrast, forces MPs to divert time, energy and attention to other political matters, and purdah constitutes a greater obstacle to Brexit preparations--unless the govt's intention is to simply disregard that convention, like it has chosen to disregard everything else that makes British governance halfway civilized.No, proroguation which is already scheduled will do that.
Nonsense, because these MPs will have been forced to focus on campaigning instead of on Brexit-related preparation. Their capacity to address any of the public's concerns on pretty much any issue will have been severely hampered, regardless of party.An election is a different matter. An election means that when Parliament resumes we can do so with a set of MPs answering the publics concerns -
Utter nonsense. Johnson is putting the UK on the line--his career is fine either way, whether it's in politics, or as an overpaid liar at the Telegraph.and if the public wants Labour it has a choice, Johnson is literally putting his career on the line.
Oh you ridiculous little Trumpist. Most good journalists use anonymous sources, and they make sure to get independent verification on what those sources report. Peter Foster is an extremely respected journalist with an excellent track-record on Brexit reporting. The people in and around govt, meanwhile, are a bunch of disgraceful chancers with a solid track-record for lying (see eg. Yellowhammer lies just recently). If the govt. is right that what he's reporting is a "categoric lie", then it's more likely that the govt. & Cummings lied to the highly placed sources than that the sources independently lied to Foster, or that Foster is lying about what he's reporting.Credible? Anonymous sources denied as categorical lies aren't credible unless you're completely vacuous and believing what you want to believe.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
A govt of liars characterized by a contempt for both truth and for the law:
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
And let's not forget Nicky Morgan's painfully mistimed lie: “Downing Street have made it very clear that claims of any sort of prorogation in September are utterly false.”
Liars
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I've said to you in the past I won't necessarily read every link you spam as you have a tendency to spam multiple links without bothering to quote or make a point of any of them. I replied to the words in your post not the link.
If you can't be arsed to quote from a link, don't expect me to waste my time to go fishing and reading what it is you can't be bothered to write about or quote. You had words in your Tweet you quoted and I replied to them. If you continue to blindly post links without bothering to quote snippets or anything else then expect the same response.
No that is pathetic. The correct answer is whatever you want to say, so long as that answer is not no.Pathetic. The correct answer to "does the govt. intend to follow the law?" is "yes".
Name even one. Name one time a law was passed that the government was vitriolically opposed to which it then granted royal assent to.You must have been, because the govt. has over the past few years lost a number of extremely important legislative battles against Parliament without getting the Queen to withhold assent.
Being unable to pass your own legislation is entirely different to having legislation that goes against your agenda passed against your will. You referenced 300 years but for virtually that entire 300 years it wouldn't have been possible as a defeat of such scale would be a loss of confidence in the government which would have led to a new government or new election. It is only Nick Clegg's constitutional vandalism of the ill thought through FTPA that has made this mess possible. And I can't recall any legislation comparable to an extension now opposed by the government that has been passed against their will post-FTPA.
An election isn't first choice for that reason, first choice is the legislature agreeing to the executives agenda. If it doesn't though an election is required to sort out the mess.That is not a foregone conclusion; there are at least three legal challenges to that decision. It is also a stupid objection; were Parliament to be prorogued, legislators would nevertheless be able to continue their preparatory work outside of Parliament, as would civil servants outside of Parliament (the people actually tasked with sorting out the mess created by this govt's political vandalism). A general election, in contrast, forces MPs to divert time, energy and attention to other political matters, and purdah constitutes a greater obstacle to Brexit preparations--unless the govt's intention is to simply disregard that convention, like it has chosen to disregard everything else that makes British governance halfway civilized.
Not true. If the government wins it can implement its agenda with its own mandate. If the government loses the new government can immediately request an extension if that is their choice. Either way we will be out of this absurd situation.Nonsense, because these MPs will have been forced to focus on campaigning instead of on Brexit-related preparation. Their capacity to address any of the public's concerns on pretty much any issue will have been severely hampered, regardless of party.
Johnson is PM of the UK. The idea an election is undemocratic is the most ludicrous farce yet.Utter nonsense. Johnson is putting the UK on the line--his career is fine either way, whether it's in politics, or as an overpaid liar at the Telegraph.
The issue has become so divisive that people are regularly lying on all sides. Foster is respect but his "sources" have made mistakes before. That's why a pinch of salt should be applied to any anonymous sources, that isn't Trumpian. Trump claims false news not to anonymous sources but stuff that is out in the open.Oh you ridiculous little Trumpist. Most good journalists use anonymous sources, and they make sure to get independent verification on what those sources report. Peter Foster is an extremely respected journalist with an excellent track-record on Brexit reporting. The people in and around govt, meanwhile, are a bunch of disgraceful chancers with a solid track-record for lying (see eg. Yellowhammer lies just recently). If the govt. is right that what he's reporting is a "categoric lie", then it's more likely that the govt. & Cummings lied to the highly placed sources than that the sources independently lied to Foster, or that Foster is lying about what he's reporting.
Johnson still is the PM of the UK. But he's not a PM with a majority in the HoC. So, he wasn't elected by the people, and he hasn't a majority in the house. On the basis of what democratic principle is he governing the UK?
Congratulations America
On the basis that he was the most recent PM to command the confidence in the house and that no alternative PM can demonstrate they command confidence.
It is the same reason that even after losing a VoNC in 1979 the Labour PM remained PM for months more. Also the same reason why after losing the 2010 General Election the Labour PM remained PM until coalition discussions reached their conclusion.
The House can choose another PM or choose to have an election if they're not happy with Boris.
It is questionable if he ever commanded the confidence of the majority of the house. Now it is certain he doesn't.
Congratulations America
He officially did. He carried a working majority via the agreement with the DUP. Lee only counts against him from today onwards, even if he privately felt otherwise by refusing to act on that he gave him confidence.
And it doesn't matter, once a PM is in Downing Street it is their duty to remain there until their successor is clear. Unless or until a new MP can command confidence the PM has a duty to remain in office even if he loses a VoNC.
Rumour 15-35 rebels tonight. Word is all will be expelled - including anyone who just abstains, which of course is what happened when Major made Maastricht a confidence issue.
Fingers crossed May is one of the rebels and we can be rid of her tonight.
Rebels win, ~20 rebels I'm guessing.
Don't let door hit you on the way out.
328 - 301. Next up: will Parliament let BJ call an election?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Labour's position is that they will support a new GE only after legislation to block no deal.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
If parliament is sovereign the PM should be dispensible, but since your entire constitution is a labyrinth of lies....
Congratulations America
What right to govern does a PM without the consent of a majority?
Congratulations America
Please explain how, in a democracy, people can be told what political party they can and cannot be a part of???
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
They have a constitution?
They do. It’s not written down in a single document and it can only function if everybody involves is displaying some common decency. But with a habitual liar and opportunist in charge and Brexiteers not caring what they break on the way out like they are the bloody Bullingdon club it is made clear that it’s actually quite useless. It doesn’t hold power accountable, there are no checks or balances and no matter what batshit crazy thing they come up with they do. Brexit is breaking down quite a different union than the EU.They have a constitution?
Congratulations America
... in our planning for moving our Euro-clearings operation from London to Paris ... my boss originally said to me not to worry too much, with all the shambles and disagreements Brexit will never happen.
I'm starting to wonder if he was right
Inertia.
Like there must always be a monarch, there must always be a government. We aren't Belgium. Even when Parliament is dissolved and we have zero MPs we still have a government. The government remains the government until there is a new government able to replace it. Same as in 1979 and 2010
The party is a private organisation. It has a right to determine who can and can't be a member.
A right incidentally the courts have already confirmed so this isn't disputable.
This doesn't affect democracy anymore than if we ban a spammer from the website that affects free speech. The Conservative Party is a private organisation with rules.
He persuaded all but 21 [22 including Lee] of his MPs, those 21 have been expelled. If there's a General Election and the Tories are returned with a majority those 21 won't be a part of that majority and won't be able to stymie him.
Incidentally we lost fewer MPs last night than we did through May's hubris. We lost 28 MPs at the last General Election.
If
You've lost 22 MPs in one day, without even needing to trouble the voters. Let's see what happens next time a PM rolls the dice.Incidentally we lost fewer MPs last night than we did through May's hubris. We lost 28 MPs at the last General Election.
Who knows where this chart will go in the next few weeks?
EDIT: For the sake of clarity, I don't expect it to go anywhere good. This country is fucked.
Last edited by Unheard Of; 09-04-2019 at 10:49 AM.
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote