|
|
Brexit
Sept 25, 2019 9:11:22 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Sept 25, 2019 9:11:22 GMT
Well after Iraq, Blair clearly wasn't trusted was he He won two more elections. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2019 9:16:40 GMT
Well after Iraq, Blair clearly wasn't trusted was he, and Theresa May's reputation fell month by month during her time in office. The difference is Johnson was already known as an outrageous liar before he became PM and was then happy to operate entirely outside the political norm by trying to shut down Parliament for no good reason. If he's already done it once then why not again. He has responsible for his own reputation. As far as I am aware Blair and May never tried to shut down Parliament. From the point of view of MPs this goes well beyond the rough and tumble of policy differences. The distinction is clear. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 25, 2019 9:18:44 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Sept 25, 2019 9:18:44 GMT
No it isn't. Constitutional law was unclear. A point was settled. Now it's clearer. That's how stuff works with a constitution, particularly a largely unwritten constitution. Why do you think the Queen acceded in the first place.
|
|
952 posts
|
Brexit
Sept 25, 2019 9:45:48 GMT
Post by vdcni on Sept 25, 2019 9:45:48 GMT
Well after Iraq, Blair clearly wasn't trusted was he He won two more elections. He won one more election and with a big drop in his majority and didn't serve out the full term. |
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Sept 25, 2019 9:46:09 GMT
I marched for the first time when Johnson prorogued parliament. I may not have liked what other politicians did in the past but to shut down parliament to stifle debate and scrutiny was essentially a coup. I do not always like what parliament decides but I acknowledge that their authority top trumps anything else (including a referendum that was advisory even if the executive at the time said it would be binding)
|
|
952 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Sept 25, 2019 9:50:26 GMT
Yes you just have to look at the reaction to Johnson shutting down Parliament that it was instantly recognised as something unusual and unacceptable. It united the anti no deal forces, caused many Conservatives to vote against the government, provoked instant legal actions and protests across the country.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 25, 2019 9:55:19 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Sept 25, 2019 9:55:19 GMT
It was an unresolved aspect of an unwritten constitution that has now been resolved for posterity. We all know where we stand. Excellent. Whatever else it was, the matter was firstly about constitutional clarity, and not the stupidity of this handbag waving partisanship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2019 11:34:44 GMT
No it isn't. Constitutional law was unclear. A point was settled. Now it's clearer. That's how stuff works with a constitution, particularly a largely unwritten constitution. Why do you think the Queen acceded in the first place. When did Blair and May try to shut down Parliament? That's why the courts have been instrumental in acting. You can't get a clearer distinction between did/did not try to shut down parliament. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 25, 2019 15:29:53 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2019 15:29:53 GMT
It's a pity that someone like James Dyson hadn't taken Bercow and the Remainers to court and said they were denying the views of the people in a Referendum. There would have been more indignation than when Sour Sowbury was called a Nazi.
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Sept 25, 2019 15:48:28 GMT
As stated by the Attorney General in Parliament this morning there is no legal requirement for the result of the referendum to be implemented by Parliament.
As this was the same Attorney General who advised on the Prorogation it may have to be taken with a pinch of salt but on looking at the referendum Act this seems to be the case..
As previously stated the Prorogation which the Supreme Court ruled on was a clarification of our ethereal Constitution, I cannot see an illegal act that a rich Leaver or more likely the Brexit Party could take to Court and if there was I think it would have already happened.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 25, 2019 17:12:29 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Sept 25, 2019 17:12:29 GMT
No it isn't. Constitutional law was unclear. A point was settled. Now it's clearer. That's how stuff works with a constitution, particularly a largely unwritten constitution. Why do you think the Queen acceded in the first place. When did Blair and May try to shut down Parliament? That's why the courts have been instrumental in acting. You can't get a clearer distinction between did/did not try to shut down parliament. We were talking about something else - how unique a lying PM is, or isn't. Johnson is just run of the mill in that respect, though in his favour he didn't contribute to the death of half a million civilians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2019 18:04:35 GMT
It's a pity that someone like James Dyson hadn't taken Bercow and the Remainers to court and said they were denying the views of the people in a Referendum. There would have been more indignation than when Sour Sowbury was called a Nazi. A referendum is advisory only, not legally binding. And in any event the result was the views of some people in a wafer thin majority, and it didn't give any mandate for a No Deal Brexit, so stop conflating multiple different things and spreading inaccuracies. Parliament is doing its job,simple as that. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 25, 2019 18:19:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2019 18:19:48 GMT
It's a pity that someone like James Dyson hadn't taken Bercow and the Remainers to court and said they were denying the views of the people in a Referendum. There would have been more indignation than when Sour Sowbury was called a Nazi. A referendum is advisory only, not legally binding. And in any event the result was the views of some people in a wafer thin majority, and it didn't give any mandate for a No Deal Brexit, so stop conflating multiple different things and spreading inaccuracies. Parliament is doing its job,simple as that. How can you say Parliament is doing it’s job when the majority are Remainers, pushing their own agenda and voting, plotting and attempting to block the UK leaving the EU, against the will of their constituents? It’s all very well to say that this is all about preventing No Deal, but it isn’t - it is about stopping Brexit. Parliament could not agree on what kind of deal it wanted when it had a series of votes a few months ago. Parliament failed, it is as simple as that. It had the opportunity to sent Mrs May to Brussels to ask for a certain type of deal and it couldn’t even back a single option on what to tell her to ask for. Parliament has decided nothing since then on what to do about Brexit, other than mandate that the government must ask for an extension. The entire thing is a total farce and nothing, absolutely nothing is happening other than the MPs attempting to drag it out. The way things are going I’m surprised article 50 even made it through Parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2019 18:20:13 GMT
When did Blair and May try to shut down Parliament? That's why the courts have been instrumental in acting. You can't get a clearer distinction between did/did not try to shut down parliament. We were talking about something else - how unique a lying PM is, or isn't. Johnson is just run of the mill in that respect, though in his favour he didn't contribute to the death of half a million civilians. I said “As far as I am aware Blair and May never tried to shut down Parliament. From the point of view of MPs this goes well beyond the rough and tumble of policy differences. The distinction is clear.” To which you replied in the next post “No it isn't. Constitutional law was unclear.” It doesn’t appear, to me, that you were replying to someone else, about something else. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 25, 2019 18:45:39 GMT
A referendum is advisory only, not legally binding. And in any event the result was the views of some people in a wafer thin majority, and it didn't give any mandate for a No Deal Brexit, so stop conflating multiple different things and spreading inaccuracies. Parliament is doing its job,simple as that. How can you say Parliament is doing it’s job when the majority are Remainers, pushing their own agenda and voting, plotting and attempting to block the UK leaving the EU, against the will of their constituents?. We have a representative parliamentary democracy. Members of Parliament were voted in by their constituents at the last election - post EU referendum - to use their best judgement, experience and knowledge in running the country to the benefit of their constituents. By definition, they are acting on the will of their constituents when they make those decisions. That’s what they were voted in to do. Blocking No Deal is their clear duty to their constituents as there is a huge risk of disruption to basic standards of living if we leave without a deal. You may not like it, but they are doing their job. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 25, 2019 18:53:08 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Sept 25, 2019 18:53:08 GMT
We were talking about something else - how unique a lying PM is, or isn't. Johnson is just run of the mill in that respect, though in his favour he didn't contribute to the death of half a million civilians. I said “As far as I am aware Blair and May never tried to shut down Parliament. From the point of view of MPs this goes well beyond the rough and tumble of policy differences. The distinction is clear.” To which you replied in the next post “No it isn't. Constitutional law was unclear.” It doesn’t appear, to me, that you were replying to someone else, about something else. Ah yes, you're right. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2019 19:03:11 GMT
How can you say Parliament is doing it’s job when the majority are Remainers, pushing their own agenda and voting, plotting and attempting to block the UK leaving the EU, against the will of their constituents?. We have a representative parliamentary democracy. Members of Parliament were voted in by their constituents at the last election - post EU referendum - to use their best judgement, experience and knowledge in running the country to the benefit of their constituents. By definition, they are acting on the will of their constituents when they make those decisions. That’s what they were voted in to do. Blocking No Deal is their clear duty to their constituents as there is a huge risk of disruption to basic standards of living if we leave without a deal. You may not like it, but they are doing their job. This is why Johnson, Cox et al should not be allowed to get away with attacking this Parliament. This Parliament is the most recent, in the wake of the referendum, reflection of the will of the voters*. Attacking it, insulting it and proroguing it unlawfully is therefore, by design, also an attack on the very people who voted it in as a response to that referendum. * Of course, it would be even more representative if not elected by the unrepresentative ‘first past the post’ system. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 25, 2019 19:37:58 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Sept 25, 2019 19:37:58 GMT
Anyone remember the party manifestos from 2017 on which these Parliamentarians stood?
Asking for 650 constituencies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2019 19:51:04 GMT
Anyone remember the party manifestos from 2017 on which these Parliamentarians stood? Asking for 650 constituencies. Well none of those manifestos included "We will leave the EU without a deal"... |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Sept 25, 2019 19:54:50 GMT
Conservatives: No Deal better than a Bad Deal
Labour: Reject no deal as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements "to avoid a cliff-edge for the UK economy"
Lib Dem’s: Second referendum on Brexit deal
On the whole the Parties are in line with their manifestos and carrying out the will of the people who voted for them, in our representative Democracy we are getting what we voted for.
This is the reason why a General Election will be a continuation not a resolution of the quagmire we are in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2019 19:56:03 GMT
How can you say Parliament is doing it’s job when the majority are Remainers, pushing their own agenda and voting, plotting and attempting to block the UK leaving the EU, against the will of their constituents? They are attempting to block the UK leaving the EU without a deal. That is NOT, despite what some Brexiteers rant ad nauseum, the same as blocking the UK from leaving the EU full stop. It is a necessary first step to either getting a deal or not leaving at all, but both of those outcomes are still on the table and could be achieved. Remaining is obviously Lib Dem and SNP policy, but it isn't Labour policy, so your accusation of what they are doing is false. And don't forget the will of many constituents is either not to leave or to leave with a deal - blocking No Deal IS representing their constituents in that regard. And all of that is beside the fact that the political landscape has changed dramatically since 2016, and politicians have to consider that as well. Add also everything kathryn said far better than I could. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 25, 2019 19:58:00 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2019 19:58:00 GMT
Anyone remember the party manifestos from 2017 on which these Parliamentarians stood? Asking for 650 constituencies. Well none of those manifestos included "We will leave the EU without a deal"... The only manifesto that has any life after an election is that of the winning party. It’s pretty obvious, really. A party that loses, has to go away and adapt its approach, the party that wins has to implement it. It’s the price of winning, to deliver what you promise, losers do not have that burden. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 25, 2019 20:11:38 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Sept 25, 2019 20:11:38 GMT
Well none of those manifestos included "We will leave the EU without a deal"... The only manifesto that has any life after an election is that of the winning party. It’s pretty obvious The thing that is obvious is you don't have involvement with your local constituency party of choice. MPs desert party manifesto's at their peril, as mine has found. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 25, 2019 20:22:55 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2019 20:22:55 GMT
The only manifesto that has any life after an election is that of the winning party. It’s pretty obvious The thing that is obvious is you don't have involvement with your local constituency party of choice. MPs desert party manifesto's at their peril, as mine has found. If they were from the Conservatives then that is fair, those like Grieve should have resigned the whip much earlier than waiting for it to be removed. If they weren’t a Conservative then those constituency members are on the wrong track by trying to tie them to a defunct manifesto. They would better served referring to conference motions and such (depending on what their party decided), which remain current. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 25, 2019 20:29:07 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Sept 25, 2019 20:29:07 GMT
Look, you are a very long way from grass roots activism, whether it's Blue or Red. Therefore, you have part of a story.
|
|
