News1 min ago
Oh Dear!
31 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.
No surprises here. Still, I'm sure nobody can have any complaints about due legal process. And besides, it may no longer matter now -- and probably had the exact opposite effect to what Johnson intended -- but I would assume most people would accept that whether (or under what circumstances) the PM can prorogue Parliament is an important question for the future.
Well so far the courts reckon it *is* legal, and, as I've voiced elsewhere, I can't disagree with that. But despite all the fuss about John Major doing something similar in 1997, in reality no PM has tested this power for ages. So I don't think there's any harm in checking if it's legal. And ,while it might suit Brexit supporters today for the executive power to prorogue Parliament to be a thing, if the precedent is established that a PM can shut down an inconvenient Parliament whenever they so wish, that's going to backfire against you at some point. Fair enough, you might say, if it is legal -- but, really, my hope is that asking the question and answering it prompts people to try and change the answer for the future.
In the interests of balance, the present situation, whereby the government is trapped into governing without a majority, because the Opposition effectively vetoes calls for an election, is equally intolerable. And also, equally legal -- but, I would hope, it exposes a serious and urgent need to reform or even repeal the Terms of the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
In the interests of balance, the present situation, whereby the government is trapped into governing without a majority, because the Opposition effectively vetoes calls for an election, is equally intolerable. And also, equally legal -- but, I would hope, it exposes a serious and urgent need to reform or even repeal the Terms of the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
Jim - // Because she's fighting for Parliamentary/representative democracy, which, as we all know, is how democracy works in this country. //
No argument there.
But how it does not work, is for a section of people to say, after a decision has been made, that people 'didn't know what they were voting for ...' and therefore they should be asked again.
In the course of a four-year governmental term, how many laws will be passed that will then be questioned when the implementation doesn't suit everyone's taste?
Do we then nit-pick every single thing someone dislikes? That's a recipe for chaos, which is why we don;t do it.
No argument there.
But how it does not work, is for a section of people to say, after a decision has been made, that people 'didn't know what they were voting for ...' and therefore they should be asked again.
In the course of a four-year governmental term, how many laws will be passed that will then be questioned when the implementation doesn't suit everyone's taste?
Do we then nit-pick every single thing someone dislikes? That's a recipe for chaos, which is why we don;t do it.
ANDY, is the case in court not similar to folk reporting posts?
If a post or question is reported and then deleted, would you blame the person who
reported it?
A Mod or the ED will delete a post or a thread only if it transgresses the Site Rules.
The Government is the the one making a dodgy post and Millar is the one reporting it. The Judges are the Mods or the ED.
If a post or question is reported and then deleted, would you blame the person who
reported it?
A Mod or the ED will delete a post or a thread only if it transgresses the Site Rules.
The Government is the the one making a dodgy post and Millar is the one reporting it. The Judges are the Mods or the ED.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
High Street Sales Slumpm Government...
News4 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
