Prorogation - Judgment Day:10.30am Tuesday 24/9/19

[cibaman]

He has to ask for an extension as per the Benn amendment.

No deal is off the table so what are they hiding away from?

Defeat perhaps?

I think they’re entitled to assume that, whilst he has to ask for an extension, he might not

 

[blueinsa]

I think they’re entitled to assume that, whilst he has to ask for an extension, he might not

So call the vote of no confidence and dethrone and put Corbyn in charge who can call for it.

Remain now has a majority.

What is stopping them??

 

[hgblue]

None of you give a fuck about “democracy” or “sovereignty” or you would have all been up in arms when your hero shut down Parliament, and you’d have all been celebrating when he got slapped down yesterday.

You just want your Brexit now. Whatever it looks like. Whatever it costs. You’ve all stopped preaching any benefits whatever and stopped denying the damage. You just want your Brexit because you are stuck in a corner with nowhere to go except admit you were wrong.

Being condescending and arrogant is one thing, but being condescending, arrogant and wrong is actually quite amusing. Keep up the good work.

 

[George Hannah]

Being condescending and arrogant is one thing, but being condescending, arrogant and wrong is actually quite amusing. Keep up the good work.

Condescension requires being above something, Dismal is in the lowest subterranean layer with his pants permanently on fire. It is an achievement though and could be the solitary thing he is entitled to feel proud about.

 

[Rascal]

true sovereignty rests with the people.

I am sorry but only at one time does that apply. At least once every five years the House of Commons is re-elected, and so at that point sovereignty really lies with the people. However, after the general election sovereignty returns to Parliament for the next five years.


Different types of sovereignty exist:

~ Legal Sovereignty: where Supreme Power lies according to the law

~ Political Sovereignty: where Supreme Power lies in reality

~ Pooled Sovereignty (In the EU, a supranational organisation, decisions are made by European Institutions on which all members are represented, but none has a overall say

[Most democratic political systems have both the separation of powers and checks and balances to prevent a single institution becoming omnipotent.]

Parliamentary Sovereignty is regarded as the main principle of the British Constitution. In other words, Parliament holds the supreme authority in the UK.

AV Dicey wrote that Parliament “has under the British Constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”.



~ Parliament has the ultimate political authority. Most key decisions (but not all, as some military and foreign decisions are in the hands of the PM) must be approved by Parliament.

~ All powers exercised by ministers (except for the prerogative powers of the PM), devolved governments, local governments and other public bodies are granted by parliament and can be removed by Parliament.

~ All new primary legislation must be passed by parliament and secondary legislation made by ministers can be overruled by Parliament.

~ Parliament is not bound by its predecessors (i.e. past Parliaments cannot control the actions of the current Parliament).

~ Parliament cannot bind its successors (i.e. it cannot pass laws that cannot be repealed or amended by future Parliaments).

Since the reductions in the power of the House of Lords in 1911 and 1949, the balance of power has shifted to the House of Commons.

Practical reality dictates that the British Government is the majority party in the House of Commons. Strong party discipline makes this majority reliable and almost guarantees the Government victory in Commons votes – an ‘Elective Dictatorship’. Also backed by the Civil Service ‘machine’ it is easy to argue that sovereignty actually lies with the executive not Parliament. However, a Prime Minister who systematically represses the powers of parliament tend to meet their fate – As occurred in the Supreme Court yesterday.

When Britain signed the Treaty of Rome in 1973 it accepted that the status of European law is superior to British law. This has given British courts the power of judicial review over Acts of Parliament. Therefore courts can scrutinise Acts of Parliament, refer them to the European Court of Justice and even suspend those Acts. However, Parliament is free to withdraw Britain from the EU at any time, so technically sovereignty still lies with Parliament

 

[hgblue]

I am sorry but only at one time does that apply. At least once every five years the House of Commons is re-elected, and so at that point sovereignty really lies with the people. However, after the general election sovereignty returns to Parliament for the next five years.


Different types of sovereignty exist:

~ Legal Sovereignty: where Supreme Power lies according to the law

~ Political Sovereignty: where Supreme Power lies in reality

~ Pooled Sovereignty (In the EU, a supranational organisation, decisions are made by European Institutions on which all members are represented, but none has a overall say

[Most democratic political systems have both the separation of powers and checks and balances to prevent a single institution becoming omnipotent.]

Parliamentary Sovereignty is regarded as the main principle of the British Constitution. In other words, Parliament holds the supreme authority in the UK.

AV Dicey wrote that Parliament “has under the British Constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”.



~ Parliament has the ultimate political authority. Most key decisions (but not all, as some military and foreign decisions are in the hands of the PM) must be approved by Parliament.

~ All powers exercised by ministers (except for the prerogative powers of the PM), devolved governments, local governments and other public bodies are granted by parliament and can be removed by Parliament.

~ All new primary legislation must be passed by parliament and secondary legislation made by ministers can be overruled by Parliament.

~ Parliament is not bound by its predecessors (i.e. past Parliaments cannot control the actions of the current Parliament).

~ Parliament cannot bind its successors (i.e. it cannot pass laws that cannot be repealed or amended by future Parliaments).

Since the reductions in the power of the House of Lords in 1911 and 1949, the balance of power has shifted to the House of Commons.

Practical reality dictates that the British Government is the majority party in the House of Commons. Strong party discipline makes this majority reliable and almost guarantees the Government victory in Commons votes – an ‘Elective Dictatorship’. Also backed by the Civil Service ‘machine’ it is easy to argue that sovereignty actually lies with the executive not Parliament. However, a Prime Minister who systematically represses the powers of parliament tend to meet their fate – As occurred in the Supreme Court yesterday.

When Britain signed the Treaty of Rome in 1973 it accepted that the status of European law is superior to British law. This has given British courts the power of judicial review over Acts of Parliament. Therefore courts can scrutinise Acts of Parliament, refer them to the European Court of Justice and even suspend those Acts. However, Parliament is free to withdraw Britain from the EU at any time, so technically sovereignty still lies with Parliament

I get all of that mate, and it’s why Leavers have no choice but to suck it up at the moment. My point was that the people will ultimately decide the fate of Brexit at the next GE and I have a sneaky feeling the shoe will be on the other foot soon enough.

 

[FlemishDuck]

I have to remark aswell that Even if Brittain was a direct democracy where referendums would be binding like the Swiss system rather than a representative democracy, that a binding Brexit referendum could legally not challenge the obligations made in the good friday agreement as by norms of law such international obligations would go above it.

So, even if there were no parlementarians to need to care about, even if the Brittish people had the maximum power that a direct democracy would allow so that they could bypass parliament, they would not be able to bypass previously made international obligations and the supreme court would be forced to block a no-deal and demand a sollution for the Irish question. In a direct democracy there would be impasse if the WA was not agreed upon, ad alternatives would need to be looked for by the people themselves instead of representative politicians per se.

 

[blueinsa]

I get all of that mate, and it’s why Leavers have no choice but to suck it up at the moment. My point was that the people will ultimately decide the fate of Brexit at the next GE and I have a sneaky feeling the shoe will be on the other foot soon enough.

Its easily and conveniently forgotten that this remain parliament is near the end of its life.

Sovereignty belongs to the electorate and its they who will decide sits in parliament.

 

[George Hannah]

Its easily and conveniently forgotten that this remain parliament is near the end of its life.
Sovereignty belongs to the electorate and its they who will decide sits in parliament.

 

[Rascal]

I get all of that mate, and it’s why Leavers have no choice but to suck it up at the moment. My point was that the people will ultimately decide the fate of Brexit at the next GE and I have a sneaky feeling the shoe will be on the other foot soon enough.

Even then though, Parliament will regain sovereignty and that does not guarantee that leave will prevail.

There is what I think Harold Wilson called "events" that happen that may make it either impossible to leave or stupid to leave and then Parliament has the sovereign right to decide the outcome. It was one of many reasons I was against a referendum in the first place, it lacked constitutional provision.

The only way I see it as happening is if there is an overwhelming Parliamentary majority for it, which is what we should have done in the first place.

 

[Ban-jani]

Harsh BJ, none of the above. I'm a Utopian like you and what we both want- although different- just ain't gonna happen. I want a reformed EU, a political system that doesn't end up killing people who don't agree with it and an economic system that doesn't end up destroying the planet and everybody in it. Always open to suggestions on how that can be done.

You think the EU are killing people and having the EU means we’ve got less chance of destroying the planet?

 

[George Hannah]

You think the EU are killing people and having the EU means we’ve got less chance of destroying the planet?

punctuation is there for a purpose you pillock

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Being condescending and arrogant is one thing, but being condescending, arrogant and wrong is actually quite amusing. Keep up the good work.

I'll let you have condescending, because I genuinely think you are all silly, but which bit of this post is "wrong"?

 

[FlemishDuck]

~ Parliament has the ultimate political authority. Most key decisions (but not all, as some military and foreign decisions are in the hands of the PM) must be approved by Parliament.

May i ask (out of interrest) how that works in regards to certain international obligations? For example a Nato member is attacked so the alliance is called upon, in such a case Britain can't say no? Or can it?

 

[goalmole]

What that summary from Lord Simption that George put up seems to be saying to me, is that parliament is Sovereign and today’s ruling reasserts the power of parliament.
A referendum is not compatible with a Sovereign parliament, to decide an issue that would require parliament to create laws or policies that would enable a result from a referendum.

Basically a referendum result is an indication of opinion in the public at a point in time and is doesn’t take into account how a parliament will need to proceed afterwards.
i.e it is indicative. parliament must be Sovereign.

That’s what I got out of it anyway. It’s your system but I’m starting to understand it better. I’m not sure most of your electorate do.

Now here’s a scenario, no matter how unlikely.

Boris tried to stop parliament from sitting basically remove it’s power, to try and force the issue.
He drew his die in the ditch, line in the sand, to mix metaphors.

What happens if Soames and the rest back him to stAy as PM and sort it, as Soames said himself on Newsnight, but instead of either asking for an extension or negotiating a deal he decided to become a martyr and goes to prison.
That would cement his Brexiters support but would also leave little time to get another government together and get a deal with the 31st looming.
Who sends the extension letter to the EU.
You could still stumble out of the EU and Boris would be a hero and likely be voted in again in a GE... from his prison cell.

Wouldn’t be the first MP elected from gaol would it?

Wasn't the referendum supposed to be advisory?

 

[Rascal]

May i ask how that works in regards to certain international obligations? For example a Nato member is attacked so the alliace is called upon, in such a case Braitain can't say no? Or can it?

I suppose it can say no, but whether it would say no is a different matter. We should always be seen to honour our treaty obligations whether we like them or not.

 

[George Hannah]

Wasn't the referendum supposed to be advisory?

Not before it was carried out and the result not known.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Only By those ignorantly uninformed of the terms of the referendum.

It’s advisory nature was clear to anyone who wanted to find out.

 

[hgblue]

I'll let you have condescending, because I genuinely think you are all silly, but which bit of this post is "wrong"?

Er, all of it.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Er, all of it.

Which bit? Second time I've asked you...