RugbyRebels

Stones of granite wrote:[

I can honestly say that this got my dander up.

Bloody hell. Be careful. With language like that you’ll blow your cover as an undercover Tory.

Make sure you all pack some sandwiches.

morepork wrote:Make sure you all pack some sandwiches.

...and a mac

I was going to take a pork pie, sturdier in the rain I'd suggest

Digby wrote:I was going to take a pork pie, sturdier in the rain I'd suggest

I'll have to pop in to Icelands

Cheltenham at lunchtime (unfortunately, I do wander across in front of the camera):

Preeti Patel is a still a useless psychopathic dick.

Being a psychopathic stooge is no excuse.

So, according to Gove, if Government passes a law that is inconvenient for Johnson/Cummings, they may decide to just ignore it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49541942
Another win for "take back control"

ETA, what would be the repercussions?
Constitutional crisis
Demonstrations turning into riots?

Within the commons, could we see an MP attempting a citizen's arrest on Boris? Could the cops be called? Armed police?

If an act has passed commons, lords, and commons a second time, but the PM refuses to send for royal signature - is it already law? Or just precedent? Would a law actually be being broken? Is it treason?


Or what would be the repercussions if, rather than sending it to Queenie, he called a GE at that point - delayed into November (double the usual length of time for campaigning, with parliament closed)

Per the Sunday Times, if parliament passes a law demanding the govt. ask the EU for an extension then Johnson will use the UK’s veto to kill any extension. If that were to happen we’d surely have reached peak Brexit and I will simultaneously both laugh and cry.

This has to be one of the most spectacular painting of oneself into a corner in political history.

Man. Now that it’s constitutionally acceptable to prorogue parliament for weeks on end for nakedly political reasons, what do you think Corbyn might do if he gets in power and faces a revolt?

The systematic, deliberate undermining of democratic institutions by individuals in pursuit of power is of great concern.

On the bright side, it might help convince others in my country that perhaps our system of Constitutional Monarchy Without a Written Constitution isn’t as great as we though. Then we can get rid of the former and gain the latter. Every cloud, eh?

Mellsblue wrote:Per the Sunday Times, if parliament passes a law demanding the govt. ask the EU for an extension then Johnson will use the UK’s veto to kill any extension. If that were to happen we’d surely have reached peak Brexit and I will simultaneously both laugh and cry.

Hopefully the law can specifically outlaw the use of the veto.

Nah, can't be that simple.

As far as I understand it, up until now, the UK has had parliamentary supremacy, i.e. parliament can legislate to control the powers of the executive and the judiciary (and the monarch). Problem is, I’m not sure that’s ever been written down properly. The executive might just decide that things work the other way around now and that Her Majesty’s ministers can properly advise her not to sign legislation passed by parliament. Who knows what the new rules are?

I seem to recall from my ancient legal training that when parliament made William of Orange King, they said something to the effect that Parliament can do what it wants and the monarch/executive have to obey but I can’t really remember.

EDIT: Bill of Rights 1688! That’s the fucker. Section 1 says "That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal"

And Boris with a threat to withdraw the whip and deselect (despite that latter not being his decision) any Tory MP who not only votes against the government but abstains. This really is like Trump with the disdain for democracy and insistence all underlings remake themselves in the image of their leader, and it's a hell of a standard to set with Corbyn/Momentum so close to taking power

Playing devils advocate.....

The prorogation of Parliament is only four more days than would usually seen over conference season. Opponents will, correctly, argue that this supersedes conference and parliament would’ve sat during that period. Everyone else will ask why, yet again, everything is going down to the wire.
Remainers/Bercow have already torn up parliamentary convention this year. Not to the same extent, I’d argue, but certainly on more occasions.
A plague on both their houses.

Mellsblue wrote:Playing devils advocate.....

The prorogation of Parliament is only four more days than would usually seen over conference season. Opponents will, correctly, argue that this supersedes conference and parliament would’ve sat during that period. Everyone else will ask why, yet again, everything is going down to the wire.
Remainers/Bercow have already torn up parliamentary convention this year. Not to the same extent, I’d argue, but certainly on more occasions.
A plague on both their houses.

It's six more days, which is a third of the time remaining at a time when Parliamentary business is already heavily squeezed, and that assumes that parliament would have taken the maximum amount of time for conferences. If he'd prorogued for a more standard 7 days, I'd buy it was standard behaviour. 35 days can fuck right off.

Bercow did screw with parliamentary convention, but I've got a lot more time for what he did as it was to allow more Parliamentary debate, rather than allowing the executive to railroad the discussion. This is the opposite.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Playing devils advocate.....

The prorogation of Parliament is only four more days than would usually seen over conference season. Opponents will, correctly, argue that this supersedes conference and parliament would’ve sat during that period. Everyone else will ask why, yet again, everything is going down to the wire.
Remainers/Bercow have already torn up parliamentary convention this year. Not to the same extent, I’d argue, but certainly on more occasions.
A plague on both their houses.

It's six more days, which is a third of the time remaining at a time when Parliamentary business is already heavily squeezed, and that assumes that parliament would have taken the maximum amount of time for conferences. If he'd prorogued for a more standard 7 days, I'd buy it was standard behaviour. 35 days can fuck right off.

Bercow did screw with parliamentary convention, but I've got a lot more time for what he did as it was to allow more Parliamentary debate, rather than allowing the executive to railroad the discussion. This is the opposite.

Puja

Does 6 include a weekend? I’ll assume yes as you’ve included weekends in your days count. Tbh, even counting Fridays is a bit of a stretch. IIRC, every source I’ve read says four.

Like I said, Boris’s manoeuvre is the worst of all, so far, but I’ve no time for anybody breaking convention/undermining the constitution to suit their own aims. There’s also an argument of Bercow reaping the weeds he has sown. Why should Brexiteers play fair if Remainers don’t.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Playing devils advocate.....

The prorogation of Parliament is only four more days than would usually seen over conference season. Opponents will, correctly, argue that this supersedes conference and parliament would’ve sat during that period. Everyone else will ask why, yet again, everything is going down to the wire.
Remainers/Bercow have already torn up parliamentary convention this year. Not to the same extent, I’d argue, but certainly on more occasions.
A plague on both their houses.

It's six more days, which is a third of the time remaining at a time when Parliamentary business is already heavily squeezed, and that assumes that parliament would have taken the maximum amount of time for conferences. If he'd prorogued for a more standard 7 days, I'd buy it was standard behaviour. 35 days can fuck right off.

Bercow did screw with parliamentary convention, but I've got a lot more time for what he did as it was to allow more Parliamentary debate, rather than allowing the executive to railroad the discussion. This is the opposite.

Puja

Does 6 include a weekend? I’ll assume yes as you’ve included weekends in your days count. Tbh, even counting Fridays is a bit of a stretch. IIRC, every source I’ve read says four.

Like I said, Boris’s manoeuvre is the worst of all, so far, but I’ve no time for anybody breaking convention/undermining the constitution to suit their own aims. There’s also an argument of Bercow reaping the weeds he has sown. Why should Brexiteers play fair if Remainers don’t.

Do they normally prorogue parliament during conference season? I thought they specifically had the MPs vote for a recess which doesn't have the additional impact of closing all committees, of ending the process of any bill open before the houses, of removing the possibility of asking questions of the government in parliament. So this whole process is, I thought, really very different

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
It's six more days, which is a third of the time remaining at a time when Parliamentary business is already heavily squeezed, and that assumes that parliament would have taken the maximum amount of time for conferences. If he'd prorogued for a more standard 7 days, I'd buy it was standard behaviour. 35 days can fuck right off.

Bercow did screw with parliamentary convention, but I've got a lot more time for what he did as it was to allow more Parliamentary debate, rather than allowing the executive to railroad the discussion. This is the opposite.

Puja

Does 6 include a weekend? I’ll assume yes as you’ve included weekends in your days count. Tbh, even counting Fridays is a bit of a stretch. IIRC, every source I’ve read says four.

Like I said, Boris’s manoeuvre is the worst of all, so far, but I’ve no time for anybody breaking convention/undermining the constitution to suit their own aims. There’s also an argument of Bercow reaping the weeds he has sown. Why should Brexiteers play fair if Remainers don’t.

Do they normally prorogue parliament during conference season? I thought they specifically had the MPs vote for a recess which doesn't have the additional impact of closing all committees, of ending the process of any bill open before the houses, of removing the possibility of asking questions of the government in parliament. So this whole process is, I thought, really very different

In my understanding (which may be incomplete), they are very different. I understood Prorogation to be the formal end of a Parliamentary Session, so as you say, all business is terminated. A Recess is a pause in business.
Normally, there wouldn't be a Prorogation at this time, but as Johnson has taken over as PM it is understandable that there is one. What is not acceptable is that he is setting a precedent of using it as a political tactical weapon to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
It's six more days, which is a third of the time remaining at a time when Parliamentary business is already heavily squeezed, and that assumes that parliament would have taken the maximum amount of time for conferences. If he'd prorogued for a more standard 7 days, I'd buy it was standard behaviour. 35 days can fuck right off.

Bercow did screw with parliamentary convention, but I've got a lot more time for what he did as it was to allow more Parliamentary debate, rather than allowing the executive to railroad the discussion. This is the opposite.

Puja

Does 6 include a weekend? I’ll assume yes as you’ve included weekends in your days count. Tbh, even counting Fridays is a bit of a stretch. IIRC, every source I’ve read says four.

Like I said, Boris’s manoeuvre is the worst of all, so far, but I’ve no time for anybody breaking convention/undermining the constitution to suit their own aims. There’s also an argument of Bercow reaping the weeds he has sown. Why should Brexiteers play fair if Remainers don’t.

Do they normally prorogue parliament during conference season? I thought they specifically had the MPs vote for a recess which doesn't have the additional impact of closing all committees, of ending the process of any bill open before the houses, of removing the possibility of asking questions of the government in parliament. So this whole process is, I thought, really very different

Nope. Normally recess, as you probably well know. For all intents and purposes its 90% the same. I’m again getting into territory of defending something I disagree with, I’m just pissed off with the hysteria, hyperbole and ridiculous stances like ‘stop the coup’.
It’s a terrible move, for many reasons, but parliament started us down this road, both by making no deal the default and twisting parliamentary procedure to suit their own ends.
As I said, I plague on both their houses.
It’s no surprise that Gen Z, sorry if that phrase offends anyone, are losing faith in democracy.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Does 6 include a weekend? I’ll assume yes as you’ve included weekends in your days count. Tbh, even counting Fridays is a bit of a stretch. IIRC, every source I’ve read says four.

Like I said, Boris’s manoeuvre is the worst of all, so far, but I’ve no time for anybody breaking convention/undermining the constitution to suit their own aims. There’s also an argument of Bercow reaping the weeds he has sown. Why should Brexiteers play fair if Remainers don’t.

Do they normally prorogue parliament during conference season? I thought they specifically had the MPs vote for a recess which doesn't have the additional impact of closing all committees, of ending the process of any bill open before the houses, of removing the possibility of asking questions of the government in parliament. So this whole process is, I thought, really very different

In my understanding (which may be incomplete), they are very different. I understood Prorogation to be the formal end of a Parliamentary Session, so as you say, all business is terminated. A Recess is a pause in business.
Normally, there wouldn't be a Prorogation at this time, but as Johnson has taken over as PM it is understandable that there is one. What is not acceptable is that he is setting a precedent of using it as a political tactical weapon to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament.

Agreed, other than them being very different. To bring a queens speech, which is normal for a new govt, you need to prorogue. It’s the length that, rightly, the issue.
Interestingly, I didn’t read you, and others, being upset about Bercow setting dangerous precedent by ignoring the advice of parliamentary clerks. (Apologies if you did).

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Does 6 include a weekend? I’ll assume yes as you’ve included weekends in your days count. Tbh, even counting Fridays is a bit of a stretch. IIRC, every source I’ve read says four.

Like I said, Boris’s manoeuvre is the worst of all, so far, but I’ve no time for anybody breaking convention/undermining the constitution to suit their own aims. There’s also an argument of Bercow reaping the weeds he has sown. Why should Brexiteers play fair if Remainers don’t.

Do they normally prorogue parliament during conference season? I thought they specifically had the MPs vote for a recess which doesn't have the additional impact of closing all committees, of ending the process of any bill open before the houses, of removing the possibility of asking questions of the government in parliament. So this whole process is, I thought, really very different

Nope. Normally recess, as you probably well know. For all intents and purposes its 90% the same. I’m again getting into territory of defending something I disagree with, I’m just pissed off with the hysteria, hyperbole and ridiculous stances like ‘stop the coup’.
It’s a terrible move, for many reasons, but parliament started us down this road, both by making no deal the default and twisting parliamentary procedure to suit their own ends.
As I said, I plague on both their houses.
It’s no surprise that Gen Z, sorry if that phrase offends anyone, are losing faith in democracy.

it's not the same as a recess, every question before government pending an answer is closed, all the committees are closed, there's no demand the executive appear to answer questions, not even emergency questions. so where on earth are you plucking the figure of 90% the same from, and what's it based on? Also there's a world of difference between Bercow modifying procedure to take account of parliament, his job being at heart to allow the house to express its view, and modifying procedure to ignore parliament as with Boris

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Do they normally prorogue parliament during conference season? I thought they specifically had the MPs vote for a recess which doesn't have the additional impact of closing all committees, of ending the process of any bill open before the houses, of removing the possibility of asking questions of the government in parliament. So this whole process is, I thought, really very different

Nope. Normally recess, as you probably well know. For all intents and purposes its 90% the same. I’m again getting into territory of defending something I disagree with, I’m just pissed off with the hysteria, hyperbole and ridiculous stances like ‘stop the coup’.
It’s a terrible move, for many reasons, but parliament started us down this road, both by making no deal the default and twisting parliamentary procedure to suit their own ends.
As I said, I plague on both their houses.
It’s no surprise that Gen Z, sorry if that phrase offends anyone, are losing faith in democracy.

it's not the same as a recess, every question before government pending an answer is closed, all the committees are closed, there's no demand the executive appear to answer questions, not even emergency questions. so where on earth are you plucking the figure of 90% the same from, and what's it based on? Also there's a world of difference between Bercow modifying procedure to take account of parliament, his job being at heart to allow the house to express its view, and modifying procedure to ignore parliament as with Boris

In reality it’s 90% the same. With MPs all over the country for conference very little is done. There is a large difference between what is in the rule book and the reality on the ground.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about the relative severity of Bercow’s and Boris’s (Cumming’s) moves.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Nope. Normally recess, as you probably well know. For all intents and purposes its 90% the same. I’m again getting into territory of defending something I disagree with, I’m just pissed off with the hysteria, hyperbole and ridiculous stances like ‘stop the coup’.
It’s a terrible move, for many reasons, but parliament started us down this road, both by making no deal the default and twisting parliamentary procedure to suit their own ends.
As I said, I plague on both their houses.
It’s no surprise that Gen Z, sorry if that phrase offends anyone, are losing faith in democracy.

it's not the same as a recess, every question before government pending an answer is closed, all the committees are closed, there's no demand the executive appear to answer questions, not even emergency questions. so where on earth are you plucking the figure of 90% the same from, and what's it based on? Also there's a world of difference between Bercow modifying procedure to take account of parliament, his job being at heart to allow the house to express its view, and modifying procedure to ignore parliament as with Boris

In reality it’s 90% the same. With MPs all over the country for conference very little is done. There is a large difference between what is in the rule book and the reality on the ground.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about the relative severity of Bercow’s and Boris’s (Cumming’s) moves.

I think we're basically disagreeing on the use of the word reality at this point

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
it's not the same as a recess, every question before government pending an answer is closed, all the committees are closed, there's no demand the executive appear to answer questions, not even emergency questions. so where on earth are you plucking the figure of 90% the same from, and what's it based on? Also there's a world of difference between Bercow modifying procedure to take account of parliament, his job being at heart to allow the house to express its view, and modifying procedure to ignore parliament as with Boris

In reality it’s 90% the same. With MPs all over the country for conference very little is done. There is a large difference between what is in the rule book and the reality on the ground.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about the relative severity of Bercow’s and Boris’s (Cumming’s) moves.

I think we're basically disagreeing on the use of the word reality at this point

Fine. I’m happy with this. Those taking positions at either edge of the Brexit debate lost their grip on reality a good while ago.