PM Boris forms a government

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

As I drink my glass of red wine ....

The issue between us is the superiority of direct democracy (authorised by Parliament) and Parliamentary democracy (when that institution subverts direct democracy).

Constitutionally, Parliament is still sovereign. There is no statute or convention to say otherwise. If one existed, Parliament could legislate against it anyway.

However, parliament has created a moral bear trap for itself by allowing a referendum on a specific issue, resulting in the expressed will of the people being placed explicitly at odds with the preferences of MPs. By its own actions, Parliament has allowed the legitimacy of its sovereignty to be questioned. This is worrying, because that really ought to be beyond question, but now here we are.

The constitutional settlement can change. It wasn’t always the way it is now. The actions of Parliament this year, insisting on asserting its sovereignty in the face of a referendum it called and promised to respect, are the very sort of thing that has precipitated crisis and constitutional change in the past. I hope that doesn’t happen because rapid constitutional innovation is messy and in extreme circumstances can turn bloody.

Meanwhile on Twitter, Claire Fox (Brexit MEP, ex-Revolutionary Communist Party)

Ironically, while all Remain hysteria is focused on #Prorogation - less attention being paid to prospects of a bloody awful deal. Boris being turned into personifucation of Hard Brexit by opponents means less scrutiny by all voters of possible BRINO being sneaked through

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Constitutionally, Parliament is still sovereign. There is no statute or convention to say otherwise. If one existed, Parliament could legislate against it anyway.

However, parliament has created a moral bear trap for itself by allowing a referendum on a specific issue, resulting in the expressed will of the people being placed explicitly at odds with the preferences of MPs. By its own actions, Parliament has allowed the legitimacy of its sovereignty to be questioned. This is worrying, because that really ought to be beyond question, but now here we are.

The constitutional settlement can change. It wasn’t always the way it is now. The actions of Parliament this year, insisting on asserting its sovereignty in the face of a referendum it called and promised to respect, are the very sort of thing that has precipitated crisis and constitutional change in the past. I hope that doesn’t happen because rapid constitutional innovation is messy and in extreme circumstances can turn bloody.

Spot on.

[nomadking]

It's not about the Brexit referendum but same principles.

Link

IMAGINE IF the Government lost a general election but refused to concede defeat. Imagine if they said that while respecting the outcome, they believed that the electorate failed to understand the issues, were misled by opposition parties and manipulated by the media. Imagine if they decided to re-run the election, threatening international isolation and economic collapse if the electorate refused to change their mind.
Would you be outraged? Would you feel that your vote was being ignored? Would you think that democracy was being undermined?
This is exactly what the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government, supported by Fine Gael and Labour, is proposing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.
...
In the immediate aftermath of the referendum result, all political parties rushed to assure voters that their democratic verdict would be respected. For example Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore was vociferous in saying that the "Lisbon Treaty is dead" and that the concerns of the electorate must be addressed.

Sound familiar?

The high-handed and arrogant approach of the Government over the last six months shows a complete lack of respect for the democratic will of the people.
Re-running the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would be a denial of democracy. It is no different to a defeated government re-running a general election in the hope that the voters would change their mind.
Mary Lou McDonald is a MEP for Dublin and is Sinn Féin's national chairperson.

Vince Cable, Lib Dems in 2007

Tomorrow the Liberal Democrats will table an amendment to the Government’s parliamentary motion proposing the Queen’s Speech. Our amendment calls for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.
...
In truth, the EU has changed beyond recognition from the EEC that Britain originally joined in 1973.

...
We are ready to make the positive case for Europe in a proper public debate about our membership, and we trust the people to make a decision about whether we should stay in or get out. We must flush our opponents out of their bunkers and challenge them to make clear their positions on this fundamental issue for the future of our country.

By doing so, we can also draw the poison from the debate about Europe’s future.

[1andrew1]

Great to see some further concessions from BoJo who will now negotiate with the EU without his earlier preconditions on the backstop.
Looking more and more like the deal will pretty much remain as is, but the backstop will be rebranded to link it more explicitly to the Good Friday Agreement.
https://www.ft.com/content/d75cbc18-...4-3669401ba76f

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Constitutionally, Parliament is still sovereign. There is no statute or convention to say otherwise. If one existed, Parliament could legislate against it anyway.

However, parliament has created a moral bear trap for itself by allowing a referendum on a specific issue, resulting in the expressed will of the people being placed explicitly at odds with the preferences of MPs. By its own actions, Parliament has allowed the legitimacy of its sovereignty to be questioned. This is worrying, because that really ought to be beyond question, but now here we are.

The constitutional settlement can change. It wasn’t always the way it is now. The actions of Parliament this year, insisting on asserting its sovereignty in the face of a referendum it called and promised to respect, are the very sort of thing that has precipitated crisis and constitutional change in the past. I hope that doesn’t happen because rapid constitutional innovation is messy and in extreme circumstances can turn bloody.

While I agree with the vast, vast majority of the post Parliament itself isn't designed to be this divided. The May Government would have collapsed many times over if this level of division existed over almost any other issue.

Had May convincingly won the election in 2017 her deal would have been quickly approved and nobody would be debating if the deal was (or wasn't) Brexit. Neither Parliament, or the country, are designed to be this divided on a single toxic issue.

Originally Posted by jfman

While I agree with the vast, vast majority of the post Parliament itself isn't designed to be this divided. The May Government would have collapsed many times over if this level of division existed over almost any other issue.

Had May convincingly won the election in 2017 her deal would have been quickly approved and nobody would be debating if the deal was (or wasn't) Brexit. Neither Parliament, or the country, are designed to be this divided on a single toxic issue.

Agreed ... there is something of a perfect storm blowing, but one single toxic issue has brought it all to crisis point. What worries me is that a single toxic issue is sometimes all it takes. Don’t get me wrong, I think we’re a very long way from civil war, but having deployed the innovation of a referendum (and in terms of our ancient, unwritten constitution, referendums are still an innovation), Parliament needs to be a lot more careful how it handles the fallout. Yes, the present political makeup of parliament certainly is unhelpful, but this is the point at which MPs, and particularly the Speaker, whose hands are not at all clean, need to be taking a longer term view of the institution they are temporary members of.

[papa smurf]

Former Hammond aide is frogmarched out of Downing Street by police after being accused of LEAKING ****** secrets by Boris's top adviser Dominic Cummings, SIMON WALTERS reveals


Oh dear someones in trouble.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-document.html





and now this

Scottish court denies injunction against PM's suspension of parliament

https://news.sky.com/story/live-irel...ed-up-11797517

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Former Hammond aide is frogmarched out of Downing Street by police after being accused of LEAKING ****** secrets by Boris's top adviser Dominic Cummings, SIMON WALTERS reveals


Oh dear someones in trouble.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-document.html

Obiously a leftie leaker...

She had worked for former international trade secretary Liam Fox and the Taxpayers' Alliance.

[1andrew1]

More on the sacking of Javid's senior adviser.

Boris Johnson on Thursday night risked a rift with Sajid Javid after one of the Chancellor’s most senior aides was sacked by Downing Street.
The female aide, who worked as Mr Javid’s special adviser on media affairs, was escorted out of Number 10 after a meeting with Dominic Cummings, Mr Johnson’s chief strategist.
It was unclear last night whether Mr Javid had sanctioned the move or even whether he knew about it in advance, as sources confirmed the woman was sacked on the spot following a conversation with Mr Cummings.
Downing Street declined to give a reason for the sacking, but said all special advisers serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...scorted-no-10/

[denphone]

Sir John Major announces plans to join legal action against Boris Johnson's Parliament suspension.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a4224856.html

He said in a statement: “I promised that, if the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament in order to prevent Members from opposing his Brexit plans, I would seek judicial review of his action.

“In view of the imminence of the prorogation – and to avoid duplication of effort, and taking up the court’s time through repetition – I intend to seek the court’s permission to intervene in the claim already initiated by Gina Miller, rather than to commence separate proceedings.

Of course ex prime minister John Major should know this better than anyone, after he prorogued parliament himself in 1997 to avoid the cash for questions debate by dissolving the government ahead of the General Election.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Obiously a leftie leaker...

Is that code for traitor?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Is that code for traitor?

Don't you worry, I'll get another job

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Is that code for traitor?

Not if you have a reasonable command of the English language, no...

[1andrew1]

What I don't understand is why Sajid David was not informed in advance that Sonia Khan was going to be sacked, or instructed to sack her himself. It looks like he himself is not being trusted.