Britain's Queen could be asked to suspend parliament on Wednesday: BBC journalist

[Rookiescot]

5 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

As someone on these Brexit threads, who actually lives here in the U.K.

you are very,very,mistaken. We know how it will benefit OUR nation. And if that upsets citizens of the E.u. Then that’s your problem, until you smell the coffee.

 

 

I dont recall leaving the single market being banded around by Brexiteers BEFORE the vote.

Indeed Brexiteers were at pains to claim voting leave did NOT mean leaving the single market.

[OneMoreFarang]

10 hours ago, aright said:

Your comment“I hope nobody will bring up the UK as a sample democracy anymore. It's utterly disgusting to see how they behave.”

 

I reacted to this comment “ You seem to feel it is perfectly acceptable for Remainers to use every parliamentary  trick in the book to overturn the result of a democratically held referendum including the connivance of the Speaker  but similar action by the government, which is governed by the constitution, is utterly disgusting. “

 

No review of the referendum is needed what you need to address is the question behind my post, why you feel Remainer tactics to subvert the will of the people is democratic and the PM’s suspension of Parliament is undemocratic and disgusting behavior? As a reminder. The Queen as a result I am sure of the advice given to her by her constitutional advisers has approved his request making it both constitutional and democratic.

 

Instead of writing my own answer let me present this answer:

 

'Mad suggestion': how Tory ministers once viewed call to prorogue parliament

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/29/mad-suggestion-how-tory-ministers-once-viewed-call-to-prorogue-parliament

 

Here is one of many quotes:

During the recent Tory leadership contest, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said the idea of suspending parliament “goes against everything those men who waded onto those beaches fought & died for – and I will not have it”.

 

[david555]

5 hours ago, SheungWan said:

It has already been pointed out to SF that their absence is daft in terms of the Ireland border issue currently being played out.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

They could easely take them just the needed time and then give them up after useful voting  use(principle restored ...lol ) , showing a long nose to the DUP …. just like now every trick in the book is used

[aright]

13 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

Instead of writing my own answer let me present this answer:

 

'Mad suggestion': how Tory ministers once viewed call to prorogue parliament

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/29/mad-suggestion-how-tory-ministers-once-viewed-call-to-prorogue-parliament

 

Here is one of many quotes:

During the recent Tory leadership contest, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said the idea of suspending parliament “goes against everything those men who waded onto those beaches fought & died for – and I will not have it”.

 

I would have preferred your answer. My answer on the basis of reading, TV interviews and some knowledge of the meaning and history of   prorogation of Parliament  was personal not gleaned solely from a newspaper with a Remain bias. I have to assume without your own answer your opinions are normally provided to you by papers like the Guardian. My question was to you not the Guardian …...I don't need you to know how they feel...…..I read the paper every day. Because the suspension was deliberately chosen to coincide with the conference season to limit lost debate only 4-5 days of debate will be lost. If Mr Bercow was so outraged by the timing of the suspension why didn't he recall Parliament yesterday......he has the power to do so and If MP's are so concerned about a 4 day debate loss why don't they agree to work weekends? The Queens speech normally takes place every year before a new session of Parliament , it has been almost 2 years since the last one. It is only proper this new government present it's plans to the nation.

If I can repeat a question I have asked on a number of occasions.... If this prorogation is unconstitutional why has the Queen and her army of constitutional advisors approved it?

 

If you want to play that game however...….

Jacob Rees-Mogg savages John Bercow for wading into the Parliament suspension row when the Speaker is supposed to be politically neutral

Mr Mogg added: 'I think the outrage is phoney and it is created by people who don't want us to leave the European Union and are trying very hard to overturn the referendum result and don't want the benefits of leaving the European Union.' 

''Parliament wasn't going to be sitting for most of this time anyway. This is completely constitutional and proper.' 

Other pro-Brexit MPs accused Bercow of hypocrisy as he has openly admitted breaking convention by aiding the Remain side in the Commons.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7406635/Jacob-Rees-Mogg-savages-John-Bercow-wading-Parliament-suspension-row.html

 

 

 

 

[bendejo]

9 hours ago, bangrak said:

I thank you for your reaction, but it is no answer on my specific question: could Her Majesty, yes or no, have had the choice to react in the way I described

Yes, this is my question.  If HM did not give the nod to what he asked for, would it have been a ground-shaking event?  If so, BoJo would have gone into it knowing he would get what he wanted.  Does she have advisors for the consequences of this kind of thing?

 

 

[david555]

(So by now Friday morning there would be a ruling about it as mentioned in article )

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/29/proroguing-parliament-is-unlawful-abuse-of-power-court-told

Severin Carrell and Lisa O'Carroll

Thu 29 Aug 2019 18.05 BST Last

Proroguing parliament is unlawful abuse of power, court told

MPs seek interdiction in Scotland as challenges also filed in Belfast and London

Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament is an unlawful abuse of power, a Scottish court has heard in the first of three legal challenges.

 

Aidan O’Neill QC, acting for a cross-party group of 75 MPs and peers, told a court in Edinburgh that the prime minister had trampled on more than 400 years of constitutional law by asking the Queen to prorogue parliament solely for political gain.

 

“We have a constitution ruled by law,” O’Neill told Lord Doherty in the court of session, urging him to issue an interdict – a Scottish court order equivalent to an injunction – forcing the UK government to quash the prorogation order signed by the Queen on Wednesday.

 

more...

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by david555

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, aright said:

I would have preferred your answer. My answer on the basis of reading, TV interviews and some knowledge of the meaning and history of   prorogation of Parliament  was personal not gleaned solely from a newspaper with a Remain bias. I have to assume without your own answer your opinions are normally provided to you by papers like the Guardian. My question was to you not the Guardian …...I don't need you to know how they feel...…..I read the paper every day. Because the suspension was deliberately chosen to coincide with the conference season to limit lost debate only 4-5 days of debate will be lost. If Mr Bercow was so outraged by the timing of the suspension why didn't he recall Parliament yesterday......he has the power to do so and If MP's are so concerned about a 4 day debate loss why don't they agree to work weekends? The Queens speech normally takes place every year before a new session of Parliament , it has been almost 2 years since the last one. It is only proper this new government present it's plans to the nation.

If I can repeat a question I have asked on a number of occasions.... If this prorogation is unconstitutional why has the Queen and her army of constitutional advisors approved it?

 

If you want to play that game however...….

Jacob Rees-Mogg savages John Bercow for wading into the Parliament suspension row when the Speaker is supposed to be politically neutral

Mr Mogg added: 'I think the outrage is phoney and it is created by people who don't want us to leave the European Union and are trying very hard to overturn the referendum result and don't want the benefits of leaving the European Union.' 

''Parliament wasn't going to be sitting for most of this time anyway. This is completely constitutional and proper.' 

Other pro-Brexit MPs accused Bercow of hypocrisy as he has openly admitted breaking convention by aiding the Remain side in the Commons.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7406635/Jacob-Rees-Mogg-savages-John-Bercow-wading-Parliament-suspension-row.html

 

 

 

 

I'll just leave this here.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/29/then-and-now-what-senior-tories-say-about-proroguing-parliament

[Rookiescot]

3 minutes ago, david555 said:

(So by now Friday morning there would be a ruling about it as mentioned in article )

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/29/proroguing-parliament-is-unlawful-abuse-of-power-court-told

Severin Carrell and Lisa O'Carroll

Thu 29 Aug 2019 18.05 BST Last

Proroguing parliament is unlawful abuse of power, court told

MPs seek interdiction in Scotland as challenges also filed in Belfast and London

Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament is an unlawful abuse of power, a Scottish court has heard in the first of three legal challenges.

 

Aidan O’Neill QC, acting for a cross-party group of 75 MPs and peers, told a court in Edinburgh that the prime minister had trampled on more than 400 years of constitutional law by asking the Queen to prorogue parliament solely for political gain.

 

“We have a constitution ruled by law,” O’Neill told Lord Doherty in the court of session, urging him to issue an interdict – a Scottish court order equivalent to an injunction – forcing the UK government to quash the prorogation order signed by the Queen on Wednesday.

 

more...

 

Scotland is unusual in that it is the people who are sovereign not the monarch. It is a law in Scotland that the monarch is not allowed to do anything which brings harm upon the country.

By allowing Johnson to suspend parliament to prevent objections to a no deal exit she has effectively brought harm.

 

Will be interesting to see what the verdict is. 

[Laughing Gravy]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

I dont recall leaving the single market being banded around by Brexiteers BEFORE the vote.

Indeed Brexiteers were at pains to claim voting leave did NOT mean leaving the single market.

Maybe you haven't been around on these threads or leading up to the referendum.  This man said it countless time. Do you know him?

 

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, aright said:

I would have preferred your answer. My answer on the basis of reading, TV interviews and some knowledge of the meaning and history of   prorogation of Parliament  was personal not gleaned solely from a newspaper with a Remain bias. I have to assume without your own answer your opinions are normally provided to you by papers like the Guardian. My question was to you not the Guardian …...I don't need you to know how they feel...…..I read the paper every day. Because the suspension was deliberately chosen to coincide with the conference season to limit lost debate only 4-5 days of debate will be lost. If Mr Bercow was so outraged by the timing of the suspension why didn't he recall Parliament yesterday......he has the power to do so and If MP's are so concerned about a 4 day debate loss why don't they agree to work weekends? The Queens speech normally takes place every year before a new session of Parliament , it has been almost 2 years since the last one. It is only proper this new government present it's plans to the nation.

If I can repeat a question I have asked on a number of occasions.... If this prorogation is unconstitutional why has the Queen and her army of constitutional advisors approved it?

 

If you want to play that game however...….

Jacob Rees-Mogg savages John Bercow for wading into the Parliament suspension row when the Speaker is supposed to be politically neutral

Mr Mogg added: 'I think the outrage is phoney and it is created by people who don't want us to leave the European Union and are trying very hard to overturn the referendum result and don't want the benefits of leaving the European Union.' 

''Parliament wasn't going to be sitting for most of this time anyway. This is completely constitutional and proper.' 

Other pro-Brexit MPs accused Bercow of hypocrisy as he has openly admitted breaking convention by aiding the Remain side in the Commons.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7406635/Jacob-Rees-Mogg-savages-John-Bercow-wading-Parliament-suspension-row.html

 

 

 

 

The conference recess is not automatic and is voted on by MPs. This year it was going to be challenged.

Prorugation suspends all parliamentary activity including the HoL , scrutiny commitees and lilewise.  The conferance recess would have allowed these to continue

 

The difference between Bercow actions and BJ is that Bercow gave Parliament a voice while Prorugation silences Parliament

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by cleopatra2

[OneMoreFarang]

[cleopatra2]

4 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Maybe you haven't been around on these threads or leading up to the referendum.  This man said it countless time. Do you know him?

 

it was branded project fear

[Laughing Gravy]

Just now, cleopatra2 said:

it was branded project fear

So you don't deny that the leader of remain campaign and the PM said we would leave the customs union, single market ECJ.

 

Now you are telling us this is project fear.

 

No, its called leaving the EU, as what people voted for on the ballot paper.

[cleopatra2]

5 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

So you don't deny that the leader of remain campaign and the PM said we would leave the customs union, single market ECJ.

 

Now you are telling us this is project fear.

 

No, its called leaving the EU, as what people voted for on the ballot paper.

BJ after the referendum stated we would have access to the Single Market

[david555]

20 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Scotland is unusual in that it is the people who are sovereign not the monarch. It is a law in Scotland that the monarch is not allowed to do anything which brings harm upon the country.

By allowing Johnson to suspend parliament to prevent objections to a no deal exit she has effectively brought harm.

 

Will be interesting to see what the verdict is. 

????  Seems Scotland has normal laws for the people not for the rulers only

[Laughing Gravy]

2 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

BJ after the referendum stated we would have access to the Single Market

The vote for the referendum was already done then and what people voted for after all DC was the PM not BJ at that time.

 

So is it project fear or are you just walking in circles trying to come up with something that either doesn't exist or is a load of rollocks.

[evadgib]

15 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

#512?

Edited August 30, 2019 by evadgib

[cleopatra2]

Just now, Laughing Gravy said:

The vote for the referendum was already done then and what people voted for after all DC was the PM not BJ at that time.

 

So is it project fear or are you just walking in circles trying to come up with something that either doesn't exist or is a load of rollocks.

i fail to see the difficulty here

Remain said a vote leave meant leaving the SM

The leave campaign branded this project fear . Implying the SM was a seperate issue.

After the referendum BJ a leading vote leave campaigner re inforced this point by stating we would have access to the SM

The leave campaign implied during and imnediately after the referendum that a leave vote was not a vote to leave the SM

[Laughing Gravy]

4 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

i fail to see the difficulty here

Remain said a vote leave meant leaving the SM

The leave campaign branded this project fear . Implying the SM was a seperate issue.

After the referendum BJ a leading vote leave campaigner re inforced this point by stating we would have access to the SM

The leave campaign implied during and imnediately after the referendum that a leave vote was not a vote to leave the SM

Yes not walking but running around in circles.

Everyone in the UK got a leaflet from the government stating what voting leave meant, at the tax payers cost of 9.3 million pound.

 

People vote on what the PM stated as he is in charge of the country, not Joe Bloggs or anyone else. We were told countless times that the result would be respected which meant leaving the CU, SM, ECJ.

 

Now it seems you and others are trying to deny that and use a ridiculous argument that BJ said this or that when he wasn't PM then or even in charge of Theresa Mays negotiations.  Isn't it time you man up to the truth and not bend the facts to suit your own agenda.

 

[OneMoreFarang]

24 minutes ago, evadgib said:

#512?

Ok, I looked it up:
512 (five hundred [and] twelve) is the natural number following 511 and preceding 513. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/512_(number)

[RuamRudy]

14 hours ago, JamesBlond said:

Reading the stuff in this thread. It's jaw-dropping. It's never been as clear to me as this that there is actually a cohort of people out there, intentionally, cynically trying to destroy traditional British culture and replace it with some leftist, multicultural, PC, feminist, LGBTQ craptopia simply to keep themselves in their neurotic comfort zone. That's really what this is all about. The economic stuff is just a smokescreen.

 

Expulsion would be too good for them - how about trying them for treason, for betraying the interests of their own nation on behalf of anti-British groups that are seeking to appropriate the country for their own ends. Yes, treason. The word is not too strong.

 

Obviously Brexit is only going to be the first step to fix this.

Just exactly what is British culture and how is it manifested? Please elaborate.

[david555]

https://news.sky.com/story/tory-grandee-ken-clarke-id-be-prepared-to-back-jeremy-corbyn-as-caretaker-pm-11797355

Thursday 29 August 2019 22:15, UK

 

Tory grandee Ken Clarke: I'd be prepared to back Jeremy Corbyn as caretaker PM

Former chancellor Ken Clarke tells Sky News he would support the Labour leader - provided he could be kept "under control".

 

Tory grandee Ken Clarke has told Sky News he "probably would" back Jeremy Corbyn to be caretaker prime minister in order to avoid a no-deal Brexit - provided he could be kept "under control".

The former chancellor, who is the longest-serving male MP in the Commons, said he would be prepared to support the Labour leader if it meant stopping Britain leaving the EU without an agreement in place at the end of October.

 

He said: "So long as it were absolutely certain we could keep Jeremy under control and he wouldn't have the slightest chance of implementing any bits of his Labour manifesto, I hate to tell you but I probably would."

[Handsome Gardener]

14 hours ago, aright said:

Your comment“I hope nobody will bring up the UK as a sample democracy anymore. It's utterly disgusting to see how they behave.”

 

I reacted to this comment “ You seem to feel it is perfectly acceptable for Remainers to use every parliamentary  trick in the book to overturn the result of a democratically held referendum including the connivance of the Speaker  but similar action by the government, which is governed by the constitution, is utterly disgusting. “

 

No review of the referendum is needed what you need to address is the question behind my post, why you feel Remainer tactics to subvert the will of the people is democratic and the PM’s suspension of Parliament is undemocratic and disgusting behavior? As a reminder. The Queen as a result I am sure of the advice given to her by her constitutional advisers has approved his request making it both constitutional and democratic.

 

It was the will of the people (well 25% of them assuming you are talking about the UK population) in 2016, it is no longer the will of the people - what is democratic then about ramming something through via parliamentary thuggery that your 'people' no longer want ?

 

It is not 'subversion' it is reflecting current opinion

[Mavideol]

1 minute ago, david555 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/tory-grandee-ken-clarke-id-be-prepared-to-back-jeremy-corbyn-as-caretaker-pm-11797355

Thursday 29 August 2019 22:15, UK

 

Tory grandee Ken Clarke: I'd be prepared to back Jeremy Corbyn as caretaker PM

Former chancellor Ken Clarke tells Sky News he would support the Labour leader - provided he could be kept "under control".

 

Tory grandee Ken Clarke has told Sky News he "probably would" back Jeremy Corbyn to be caretaker prime minister in order to avoid a no-deal Brexit - provided he could be kept "under control".

The former chancellor, who is the longest-serving male MP in the Commons, said he would be prepared to support the Labour leader if it meant stopping Britain leaving the EU without an agreement in place at the end of October.

 

He said: "So long as it were absolutely certain we could keep Jeremy under control and he wouldn't have the slightest chance of implementing any bits of his Labour manifesto, I hate to tell you but I probably would."

the problem is the "probable would"  I do think Corbyn should step aside and let somebody else be the caretaker, doing so he may rally the opposition together.... because as it stands with his position/stands he has very little chance, maybe even less than me winning the lottery, ohhhh sh.. I don't play the lottery

[Handsome Gardener]

47 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Just exactly what is British culture and how is it manifested? Please elaborate.

White people only I think you'll find - however getting a brexiteer to admit that may prove difficult, though to be fair one has!

[Handsome Gardener]

16 hours ago, JamesBlond said:

Immigrants and looney lefties by the look of it. But we've always known that's what the cultural divide is in Britain nowadays - bleeding-heart idealists and immigrant opportunists trying to take over the country by tantrum. It's called Cultural Marxism.

and that's called utter <deleted>

 

Try a post without using the word 'culture'  - we understand you want the UK to be a purely white island where people with a different skin colour to you would be banned - but move on, say something else, if you have anything else.

[evadgib]

23 minutes ago, Handsome Gardener said:

and that's called utter <deleted>

 

Try a post without using the word 'culture'  - we understand you want the UK to be a purely white island where people with a different skin colour to you would be banned - but move on, say something else, if you have anything else.

Before getting your 'far right' paintbrush too wet and slapping it about like Rolf ('Can-yer-tell-wot-it-is-yet?') Harris I suggest you apply safety catch, dress back to 300 & have a good think as to how many of the people you're about to tar and and feather are (happily) married in Thailand (hint-hint) & have dual national kids...

Edited August 30, 2019 by evadgib

[DannyCarlton]

19 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Before getting your 'far right' paintbrush too wet and slapping it about like Rolf ('Can-yer-tell-wot-it-is-yet?') Harris I suggest you apply safety catch, dress back to 300 & have a good think as to how many of the people you're about daub are (happily) married in Thailand (hint-hint) & have dual national kids? 

Well if james Blond fits your description of having dual nationality kids, he truly is a piece of work.

 

In case you were about to ask, I don't have any dual nationality kids, 2 British and 1 Thai.

Edited August 30, 2019 by DannyCarlton

[Mavideol]

1 hour ago, david555 said:

????  Seems Scotland has normal laws for the people not for the rulers only

maybe the other UK members should learn from Scotland

[Handsome Gardener]

13 hours ago, citybiker said:

(Some Extracts taken from alternative sources)

 

Now theres a surprise !

 

However how can it be undemocratic to take steps to uphold the views of the CURRENT democracy ? - we've moved on from 2016, it isn't wanted anymore therefore to deny the opportunity to overturn what is now more widely understood as uneducated lunacy is entirely undemocratic !

 

Bojo's thuggery removed the word 'democracy' from the leavers arsenal.

 

However all this isn't worth the upset - its temporary, the younger generations will restore closer links as there are far fewer racists and xenophobes amongst the young, as evidenced by the vote demographics, and thankfully the aforementioned racists and xenophobes will continue to die off to extinction, many thankfully have already left us !