Brexit

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Brexit is not all about which is our biggest market. It is also about sovereignty. Once we have regained that, we can pay attention to trade deals. In the meantime, life will carry on and good will pass between the EU and the UK.

So it's all about waving the Union Jack and stuff, jobs, healthcare, the economy.. Sovereignty we already have. The more I hear about Brexit, the more crazy it all seems.

---------- Post added at 11:48 ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I didn't define Brexit, I just stated our obvious top priority in terms of trade. Anyway, we have a bit of breathing space as Brexit is unlikely to happen in October anyway.

October which year!

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I didn't define Brexit, I just stated our obvious top priority in terms of trade. Anyway, we have a bit of breathing space as Brexit is unlikely to happen in October anyway.

Unless this is the new PM
Dominic Raab prepared to BREAK UP PARLIAMENT to force no deal Brexit - 'Out by October'

TORY leadership hopeful Dominic Raab has vowed he is will to do whatever it takes to ensure the UK leaves the EU by the end of October - including breaking up Parliament until after the Halloween deadline.


https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...ip-race-latest

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Unless this is the new PM
Dominic Raab prepared to BREAK UP PARLIAMENT to force no deal Brexit - 'Out by October'

TORY leadership hopeful Dominic Raab has vowed he is will to do whatever it takes to ensure the UK leaves the EU by the end of October - including breaking up Parliament until after the Halloween deadline.


https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...ip-race-latest

He'll stay whatever the herd who are voting want to hear. The reality will be different as it was for TM and her unmovable March date...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I didn't define Brexit, I just stated our obvious top priority in terms of trade. Anyway, we have a bit of breathing space as Brexit is unlikely to happen in October anyway.

Yes - but I know where you're coming from.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Unless this is the new PM
Dominic Raab prepared to BREAK UP PARLIAMENT to force no deal Brexit - 'Out by October'

TORY leadership hopeful Dominic Raab has vowed he is will to do whatever it takes to ensure the UK leaves the EU by the end of October - including breaking up Parliament until after the Halloween deadline.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...ip-race-latest

That would be constitutionally difficult. The PM doesn’t have the power directly to prorogue Parliament. The Queen does. He would have to ask her to do it, and would be doing so explicitly to prevent Parliament exercising its sovereign right to make legislation. Setting the Crown and Parliament against each other in that way would be constitutional dynamite. If it were known that a PM was considering such a move, I predict a message would arrive from the palace saying something along the lines of, “if you were minded to ask for a prorogation, her majesty would be minded to refuse.” As a result of which, the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom would be preserved by the PM not asking, and Her Maj not having to refuse, and Parliament carrying on as it sees fit.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Unless this is the new PM
Dominic Raab prepared to BREAK UP PARLIAMENT to force no deal Brexit - 'Out by October'

TORY leadership hopeful Dominic Raab has vowed he is will to do whatever it takes to ensure the UK leaves the EU by the end of October - including breaking up Parliament until after the Halloween deadline.


https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...ip-race-latest

I think that's just electioneering with each candidate trying to out-Brexit the next. Can't see anyone bringing this level of constitutional crisis in.

Originally Posted by Chris

That would be constitutionally difficult. The PM doesn’t have the power directly to prorogue Parliament. The Queen does. He would have to ask her to do it, and would be doing so explicitly to prevent Parliament exercising its sovereign right to make legislation. Setting the Crown and Parliament against each other in that way would be constitutional dynamite. If it were known that a PM was considering such a move, I predict a message would arrive from the palace saying something along the lines of, “if you were minded to ask for a prorogation, her majesty would be minded to refuse.” As a result of which, the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom would be preserved by the PM not asking, and Her Maj not having to refuse, and Parliament carrying on as it sees fit.

I think the speaker would work to allow a vote of No Confidence, which with the threat of a prorogue may well be won, before the PM had the chance. In which case the palace only needs to stall rather than take a position.

[Carth]

Anarchy in the UK . . or have we passed that stage already?

Originally Posted by Damien

I think the speaker would work to allow a vote of No Confidence, which with the threat of a prorogue may well be won, before the PM had the chance. In which case the palace only needs to stall rather than take a position.

In my scenario the palace isn’t taking a position - merely indicating what position it would take if asked. The key is “if asked” ... anyone being considered for an honour, for example, is asked, whether they would accept it *if* they were asked. In that sense, nobody actually offered a gong by the Queen ever refuses.

The way Royal power is used is a key aspect of our constitutional settlement, and the threat of its use, or the threat of withholding it, is arguably even more powerful in situations like this.

Raab is a long way from power at the moment but his words are ill-advised and I suspect if he did get the top job he would go cool on the idea of prorogation long before it became an immediate issue. There are plenty of people more intimately acquainted with the constitution than he is who would most likely spell this out for him before it even got to the point of the palace informally warning him that the queen would decline to cause a constitutional showdown between the Crown and Parliament.

Originally Posted by Chris

In my scenario the palace isn’t taking a position - merely indicating what position it would take if asked. The key is “if asked” ... anyone being considered for an honour, for example, is asked, whether they would accept it *if* they were asked. In that sense, nobody actually offered a gong by the Queen ever refuses.

Yeah I get what you're saying, I was just thinking about alternatives. Especially is Raab decided to try anyway.

[Sephiroth]

Without expressing any preference on my part, it seems that Leadsom and Gove are promoting the more measured view of how they'd try to proceed as PM.

Talking of not annoying the Queen: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...box=1559822301

Boris Johnson could avoid facing an immediate confidence vote in his premiership if he becomes Conservative leader, as ministers are considering whether to send MPs home early for their summer break before the new prime minister is announced.


However, it could mean that Theresa May would not be able to go to Buckingham Palace straight away and resign as prime minister. Her spokesman said May would only hand over the keys to No 10 when “she says to the Queen that she is stepping aside and believes that someone else can command the confidence of the House”.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Mick

There are no weaknesses of the first referendum - the campaigns on both sides played by the same rules - they both lied to get votes and it would happen again in another campaign in yet another referendum.

Interesting bit of whataboutism..

Still, I would argue that for the process to be fair (and democratic), then if *either* side cheated there should be penalties. They certainly should not profit by cheating.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Carth

Anarchy in the UK . . or have we passed that stage already?

Presumably, anarchy is defined as giving the electorate what they voted for in your house.

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart

Interesting bit of whataboutism..

Still, I would argue that for the process to be fair (and democratic), then if *either* side cheated there should be penalties. They certainly should not profit by cheating.

People tend to complain about 'whataboutism' when someone points out that the thing about which they complain is also done at least in equal measure by those the complainant supports. It's called getting a bit of balance into the argument.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

People tend to complain about 'whataboutism' when someone points out that the thing about which they complain is also done at least in equal measure by those the complainant supports. It's called getting a bit of balance into the argument.

There is no argument, two wrongs don't make a right, end of. Attempting to deflect criticism by saying the other side were at it won't wash, it's not balance to an argument it's excusing deceit and if anything good comes out of this shambles it's that the public won't accept this behaviour anymore