Home & Garden1 min ago
Prorogation Ruled To Be Unlawful
383 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by THECORBYLOON. 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.
Also, I agree with Togo at least in as much as he calls this all "daft". It is daft that a PM with such a significant minority will not be removed by a No Confidence motion and it is daft that he is therefore being kept in power by the Opposition, whose normal objective is the exact opposite.
But there is at least some logic to the Opposition's position, however warped it ends up being. Calling an election right now hands back the advantage to Johnson, in whose gift it still remains to set the date of an election (at least if called under the Fixed Term Parliament Act). He could, and presumably would, set a date that suits him best, which would probably be after October 31st. Moreover, calling an election now automatically dissolves Parliament over the same period that they have just fought so hard to keep it open. It would be self-defeating.
On the other hand, for Johnson to call an election right now shows that he cannot take the negotiations seriously either. Johnson would be too distracted by the election campaign to focus on the negotiations, and, as a further point, it would be certainly impossible to implement the terms of Section 13 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which states that the withdrawal agreement can only be ratified with further primary legislation. An election prior to October 31st, called now at least, leaves no time to negotiate a deal, ratify it with Parliament, pass the legislation to approve it, and then pass all other secondary legislation needed to support that implementation.
But there is at least some logic to the Opposition's position, however warped it ends up being. Calling an election right now hands back the advantage to Johnson, in whose gift it still remains to set the date of an election (at least if called under the Fixed Term Parliament Act). He could, and presumably would, set a date that suits him best, which would probably be after October 31st. Moreover, calling an election now automatically dissolves Parliament over the same period that they have just fought so hard to keep it open. It would be self-defeating.
On the other hand, for Johnson to call an election right now shows that he cannot take the negotiations seriously either. Johnson would be too distracted by the election campaign to focus on the negotiations, and, as a further point, it would be certainly impossible to implement the terms of Section 13 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which states that the withdrawal agreement can only be ratified with further primary legislation. An election prior to October 31st, called now at least, leaves no time to negotiate a deal, ratify it with Parliament, pass the legislation to approve it, and then pass all other secondary legislation needed to support that implementation.
// One can vote continually against all ways out and it's the sneaky equivalent of voting to remain. //
Yes, the effect of voting against ways out is to support remaining in the long run. But it still stands to reason that you might oppose *this* way out, and you shouldn't feel trapped into supporting an option that you know is worse. A great many Brexit-supporting MPs voted against the Withdrawal Agreement for essentially the same reason.
Yes, the effect of voting against ways out is to support remaining in the long run. But it still stands to reason that you might oppose *this* way out, and you shouldn't feel trapped into supporting an option that you know is worse. A great many Brexit-supporting MPs voted against the Withdrawal Agreement for essentially the same reason.
//Parliament will reconvene - to do what exactly?//
Exactly. For the past three years they've done nothing other than say what they don't want (which, in summary, amounts to Brexit in any form whatsoever). They've successfully tied the hands of the PM with any further negotiations. They've refused a General Election. Quite why they're fussed about spending another few days doing more of the same is anybody's guess. I suppose it helps them feel important whereas in fact all they're doing is consigning the country to another period in of purgatory. The damage was done in the brief period between the summer recess and the prorogation. Their wanting to impose even more of the same must call into question whether they have been victims of some sort of sadistic ritual themselves and believe the electorate must suffer similarly. The prorogation was a non-event and the reconvening of Parliament will be similarly underwhelming.
Exactly. For the past three years they've done nothing other than say what they don't want (which, in summary, amounts to Brexit in any form whatsoever). They've successfully tied the hands of the PM with any further negotiations. They've refused a General Election. Quite why they're fussed about spending another few days doing more of the same is anybody's guess. I suppose it helps them feel important whereas in fact all they're doing is consigning the country to another period in of purgatory. The damage was done in the brief period between the summer recess and the prorogation. Their wanting to impose even more of the same must call into question whether they have been victims of some sort of sadistic ritual themselves and believe the electorate must suffer similarly. The prorogation was a non-event and the reconvening of Parliament will be similarly underwhelming.
//After watching the latest news programes I can not see us leaving the E/U on 31st OCT, in fact the way it is going I am starting to think that we will never ever leave at all .//
Why the sudden ambivalence, gully? For the past two years you have repeatedly said that "Brexit ain't gonna happen". Why the sudden equivocation?
//A great many Brexit-supporting MPs voted against the Withdrawal Agreement for essentially the same reason.//
They voted against it because it was not Brexit by any stretch of the definition, Jim.
Why the sudden ambivalence, gully? For the past two years you have repeatedly said that "Brexit ain't gonna happen". Why the sudden equivocation?
//A great many Brexit-supporting MPs voted against the Withdrawal Agreement for essentially the same reason.//
They voted against it because it was not Brexit by any stretch of the definition, Jim.
"The damage was done in the brief period between the summer recess and the prorogation."
If you mean the Withdrawal (No.2) Act, then it would presumably never have been passed, at least not so quickly, had Johnson not tried to prorogue in the first place. So it still is his mess, and it still comes down to the complete inability of Brexit supporters to recognise that Parliament is where Brexit will be implemented, and it is therefore Parliament with whom they must work, rather than against whom.
TTT: we've discussed it before. On its own merits, no I would not. If it were a choice between that and a No Deal withdrawal, then I would. I still hold out some hope that there is a fourth way out of this, some variation of the current Withdrawal Agreement that is at least mostly acceptable to most people, if for different reasons.
If you mean the Withdrawal (No.2) Act, then it would presumably never have been passed, at least not so quickly, had Johnson not tried to prorogue in the first place. So it still is his mess, and it still comes down to the complete inability of Brexit supporters to recognise that Parliament is where Brexit will be implemented, and it is therefore Parliament with whom they must work, rather than against whom.
TTT: we've discussed it before. On its own merits, no I would not. If it were a choice between that and a No Deal withdrawal, then I would. I still hold out some hope that there is a fourth way out of this, some variation of the current Withdrawal Agreement that is at least mostly acceptable to most people, if for different reasons.
This from Lord Finkelstein, in the Times (paper edition tomorrow, presumably, but already online):
// It is, in my view, parliament’s duty to respect the result of a vote it called. We must leave the European Union, as voters said we should. However, we live in a parliamentary democracy governed by laws created by parliament. Or at least we should do. The referendum did not determine the date of leaving, nor did it determine the method of doing so. That is for MPs to decide. //
The fact that MPs are refusing to make the decision doesn't in itself undermine the principle that it is they who should. Not Government, who has no power to make laws or override laws. Nor the Courts, who can only rule on legal questions, rather than political ones. In a Representative Democracy, we entrust representatives to make the decisions on what to do and how. Even if you hold that the current lot are failing to live up to that trust then that only means that you should change the people for those who *will* make such a decision, rather than change the rules in a way that destroys the principle.
// It is, in my view, parliament’s duty to respect the result of a vote it called. We must leave the European Union, as voters said we should. However, we live in a parliamentary democracy governed by laws created by parliament. Or at least we should do. The referendum did not determine the date of leaving, nor did it determine the method of doing so. That is for MPs to decide. //
The fact that MPs are refusing to make the decision doesn't in itself undermine the principle that it is they who should. Not Government, who has no power to make laws or override laws. Nor the Courts, who can only rule on legal questions, rather than political ones. In a Representative Democracy, we entrust representatives to make the decisions on what to do and how. Even if you hold that the current lot are failing to live up to that trust then that only means that you should change the people for those who *will* make such a decision, rather than change the rules in a way that destroys the principle.
So Finkelstein is advocating a General Election then Jim? He say says so when he points out that MPs have failed to agree on terms despite agreeing a date. So the logical solution is to find MPs that can agree terms. Due to the impasse these will need to be agreed after we leave seeing as they have not done so in the time that they allocated themselves. So we change them. Yes? The sovereign people have the whip hand....we came to a majority decision....it used to be called democracy, it is now being called a basis for non negotiation by the Remainiacs. Either that or rightful insurrection. What do you prefer?
At some point soon there will be a General Election -- that is, unless Johnson decides that he will work with Parliament rather than against it and is able to put together a Deal that has their support on terms that they agree with. I believe that Finkelstein agrees with this, too. On September 10th he wrote that "The country should be allowed to settle the question of Brexit through the ballot box."
The only point I would make is that if there is to be a General Election, which is inevitably going to be focused on Brexit, then it should be against the backdrop that Brexit is not imminent, or indeed that Brexit has not already happened. That would allow the new government, assuming there were one, the time and space needed to resolve the situation as it sees fit. Otherwise the question of Brexit would have been settled before the election, or, worse, during.
The only point I would make is that if there is to be a General Election, which is inevitably going to be focused on Brexit, then it should be against the backdrop that Brexit is not imminent, or indeed that Brexit has not already happened. That would allow the new government, assuming there were one, the time and space needed to resolve the situation as it sees fit. Otherwise the question of Brexit would have been settled before the election, or, worse, during.
//Otherwise the question of Brexit would have been settled before the election, or, worse, during.//
Ohh dear Jim, you were an the cusp of making your reply plausible until that give away slip of the tongue. The "question" of Brexit has been settled.....Remember, Remainiac? The coming election will endorse it, not for worse, but because the decision is already made and a "new government" will reflect that fact. The small comfort that I get from the charade is that the longer it goes on the better placed Britain becomes, the better our inward investment grows, and the more hostile the people of Britain become to the whole EUSSR ponzi scheme. Meanwhile despite their best efforts the EUSSR grows emaciated and pallid under the pressure of trying to garner support from a rapidly shrinking captive support base. The longer it is spun the stronger we become, and the less direct the dazzling "lights" of the propaganda wing of the new Reich shine. We would probably in the long run gain even more by spinning it out until they are sick with dizziness, and if that is not good enough and we are forced to remain members of a "club" that we don't want to be in, and doesn't want us in, bring it down from within. The Brexiteer of course appear to have no say in the short term outcome. Believe me we will always have a say in the eventual outcome.
Ohh dear Jim, you were an the cusp of making your reply plausible until that give away slip of the tongue. The "question" of Brexit has been settled.....Remember, Remainiac? The coming election will endorse it, not for worse, but because the decision is already made and a "new government" will reflect that fact. The small comfort that I get from the charade is that the longer it goes on the better placed Britain becomes, the better our inward investment grows, and the more hostile the people of Britain become to the whole EUSSR ponzi scheme. Meanwhile despite their best efforts the EUSSR grows emaciated and pallid under the pressure of trying to garner support from a rapidly shrinking captive support base. The longer it is spun the stronger we become, and the less direct the dazzling "lights" of the propaganda wing of the new Reich shine. We would probably in the long run gain even more by spinning it out until they are sick with dizziness, and if that is not good enough and we are forced to remain members of a "club" that we don't want to be in, and doesn't want us in, bring it down from within. The Brexiteer of course appear to have no say in the short term outcome. Believe me we will always have a say in the eventual outcome.
Togo: the "question of Brexit" I refer to is how, rather than if. Obviously if it came to a General Election and we hadn't left, and the Lib Dems won a sweeping majority, then the picture changes. But, that extreme scenario aside, the debate is about *how* to carry out Brexit. It stands to reason that you cannot "settle the question... through the ballot box" if there is no time to implement the answer, or if the question is academic.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
Who's Got The Guts To Take This...
News5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
News16 mins ago
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.