FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Constitution
Constitution
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Rather than hijack another thread there was a comment posted on one saying:
"I've always believed the United States constitution is superior to ours"
My response would be which 'constitution' is that?
The UK doesn't have a written constitution but rather an unwritten one formed by acts of parliament court judgements and conventions.
So, my question is should we have a written codified constitution?
And if so what would you like to see included in it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Rather than hijack another thread there was a comment posted on one saying:
"I've always believed the United States constitution is superior to ours"
My response would be which 'constitution' is that?
The UK doesn't have a written constitution but rather an unwritten one formed by acts of parliament court judgements and conventions.
So, my question is should we have a written codified constitution?
And if so what would you like to see included in it?"
The USA famously had one.
Only white men were recognised in it.
It was changed with various amendments, but apparently this is no longer possible. Especially if it involves guns.
It becomes inflexible.
Like a religious document written hundreds or thousands of years ago that does not evolve because it was the "word of God". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Rather than hijack another thread there was a comment posted on one saying:
"I've always believed the United States constitution is superior to ours"
My response would be which 'constitution' is that?
The UK doesn't have a written constitution but rather an unwritten one formed by acts of parliament court judgements and conventions.
So, my question is should we have a written codified constitution?
And if so what would you like to see included in it?"
No are half written constitution and is flexible which has helped us over the years.Ok at present some problems but we will get through these I am sure |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations."
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations.
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
"
She does right, thankfully someone is willing to stand upto the establishment and force them to act accordingly  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations.
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
"
I think that the Courts should not have to be brought in to find a solution for a political problem.
However, politicians shouldn't create these problems. All Bodge has to say is that he won't prorogue Parliament, but he's trying to look tough.
It would also embarass the Queen and put the constitutional structure in crisis. It would officially her instruction on the advice of her Prime Minister. Advice that a constitutional Monarch is bound to follow. The precedent set if she feels unable to is significant.
In reality Parliament itself will, in extremis, carry a vote of know confidence or sit in defiance.
Gina Miller and John Major have both threatened legal action.
Fine. We still have the law and an independent judiciary to turn to of there is nowhere else to go.
What do you think? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations.
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
I think that the Courts should not have to be brought in to find a solution for a political problem.
However, politicians shouldn't create these problems. All Bodge has to say is that he won't prorogue Parliament, but he's trying to look tough.
It would also embarass the Queen and put the constitutional structure in crisis. It would officially her instruction on the advice of her Prime Minister. Advice that a constitutional Monarch is bound to follow. The precedent set if she feels unable to is significant.
In reality Parliament itself will, in extremis, carry a vote of know confidence or sit in defiance.
Gina Miller and John Major have both threatened legal action.
Fine. We still have the law and an independent judiciary to turn to of there is nowhere else to go.
What do you think?"
I don’t know who Gina Miller is, who elected her and why she feels entitled to assemble a legal team and by-pass the MPs who were democratically elected by the people.
John Major is a hypocrite ! He prorogued parliament in 97 to avoid embarrassing questions about cash for questions . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
"
Yes, I saw that interview on the telly.
I guess anyone (or their lawyer) can write a letter to whomsoever they like. I doubt she'll get a reply.
I think it is inevitable any move to prorogue parliament would be tested immediately in the court.
If nothing else, it would dig poor old queenie out of an intolerable position.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations.
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
I think that the Courts should not have to be brought in to find a solution for a political problem.
However, politicians shouldn't create these problems. All Bodge has to say is that he won't prorogue Parliament, but he's trying to look tough.
It would also embarass the Queen and put the constitutional structure in crisis. It would officially her instruction on the advice of her Prime Minister. Advice that a constitutional Monarch is bound to follow. The precedent set if she feels unable to is significant.
In reality Parliament itself will, in extremis, carry a vote of know confidence or sit in defiance.
Gina Miller and John Major have both threatened legal action.
Fine. We still have the law and an independent judiciary to turn to of there is nowhere else to go.
What do you think?
I don’t know who Gina Miller is, who elected her and why she feels entitled to assemble a legal team and by-pass the MPs who were democratically elected by the people.
John Major is a hypocrite ! He prorogued parliament in 97 to avoid embarrassing questions about cash for questions ."
Nice to get a reply.
Anyone can bring a legal action. You don't have to be elected to do so. A good thing in my opinion. Shame you disagree.
It is actually Bodger who will not confirm not by-passing our elected representatives.
Which reliable publication did this come from?
I seem to remember a general election being called. Parliament is prorogued when that happens.
Will stop there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations.
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
I think that the Courts should not have to be brought in to find a solution for a political problem.
However, politicians shouldn't create these problems. All Bodge has to say is that he won't prorogue Parliament, but he's trying to look tough.
It would also embarass the Queen and put the constitutional structure in crisis. It would officially her instruction on the advice of her Prime Minister. Advice that a constitutional Monarch is bound to follow. The precedent set if she feels unable to is significant.
In reality Parliament itself will, in extremis, carry a vote of know confidence or sit in defiance.
Gina Miller and John Major have both threatened legal action.
Fine. We still have the law and an independent judiciary to turn to of there is nowhere else to go.
What do you think?
I don’t know who Gina Miller is, who elected her and why she feels entitled to assemble a legal team and by-pass the MPs who were democratically elected by the people.
John Major is a hypocrite ! He prorogued parliament in 97 to avoid embarrassing questions about cash for questions .
Nice to get a reply.
Anyone can bring a legal action. You don't have to be elected to do so. A good thing in my opinion. Shame you disagree.
It is actually Bodger who will not confirm not by-passing our elected representatives.
Which reliable publication did this come from?
I seem to remember a general election being called. Parliament is prorogued when that happens.
Will stop there."
Wide range of sources and opinions read, from msm and sm to the crazy anarchist stuff (the guardian) 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations.
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
I think that the Courts should not have to be brought in to find a solution for a political problem.
However, politicians shouldn't create these problems. All Bodge has to say is that he won't prorogue Parliament, but he's trying to look tough.
It would also embarass the Queen and put the constitutional structure in crisis. It would officially her instruction on the advice of her Prime Minister. Advice that a constitutional Monarch is bound to follow. The precedent set if she feels unable to is significant.
In reality Parliament itself will, in extremis, carry a vote of know confidence or sit in defiance.
Gina Miller and John Major have both threatened legal action.
Fine. We still have the law and an independent judiciary to turn to of there is nowhere else to go.
What do you think?
I don’t know who Gina Miller is, who elected her and why she feels entitled to assemble a legal team and by-pass the MPs who were democratically elected by the people.
John Major is a hypocrite ! He prorogued parliament in 97 to avoid embarrassing questions about cash for questions ."
Everyone is equal under the law, so why shouldn't the law be tested to check that proroguing parliament is actually legal? Are you suggesting that such a course of action should be denied to a citizen of the UK? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations.
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
I think that the Courts should not have to be brought in to find a solution for a political problem.
However, politicians shouldn't create these problems. All Bodge has to say is that he won't prorogue Parliament, but he's trying to look tough.
It would also embarass the Queen and put the constitutional structure in crisis. It would officially her instruction on the advice of her Prime Minister. Advice that a constitutional Monarch is bound to follow. The precedent set if she feels unable to is significant.
In reality Parliament itself will, in extremis, carry a vote of know confidence or sit in defiance.
Gina Miller and John Major have both threatened legal action.
Fine. We still have the law and an independent judiciary to turn to of there is nowhere else to go.
What do you think?
I don’t know who Gina Miller is, who elected her and why she feels entitled to assemble a legal team and by-pass the MPs who were democratically elected by the people.
John Major is a hypocrite ! He prorogued parliament in 97 to avoid embarrassing questions about cash for questions .
Nice to get a reply.
Anyone can bring a legal action. You don't have to be elected to do so. A good thing in my opinion. Shame you disagree.
It is actually Bodger who will not confirm not by-passing our elected representatives.
Which reliable publication did this come from?
I seem to remember a general election being called. Parliament is prorogued when that happens.
Will stop there.
Wide range of sources and opinions read, from msm and sm to the crazy anarchist stuff (the guardian)
"
He did prorogue early to delay a report being published. 10 days.
Politically dodgy for sure and shouldn't have happened.
I'm not going to apologise for him but the situation is completely different.
He did not do it to force through epoch changing legislation against the will of Parliament. He did it for party political benefit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations.
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
I think that the Courts should not have to be brought in to find a solution for a political problem.
However, politicians shouldn't create these problems. All Bodge has to say is that he won't prorogue Parliament, but he's trying to look tough.
It would also embarass the Queen and put the constitutional structure in crisis. It would officially her instruction on the advice of her Prime Minister. Advice that a constitutional Monarch is bound to follow. The precedent set if she feels unable to is significant.
In reality Parliament itself will, in extremis, carry a vote of know confidence or sit in defiance.
Gina Miller and John Major have both threatened legal action.
Fine. We still have the law and an independent judiciary to turn to of there is nowhere else to go.
What do you think?
I don’t know who Gina Miller is, who elected her and why she feels entitled to assemble a legal team and by-pass the MPs who were democratically elected by the people.
John Major is a hypocrite ! He prorogued parliament in 97 to avoid embarrassing questions about cash for questions .
Nice to get a reply.
Anyone can bring a legal action. You don't have to be elected to do so. A good thing in my opinion. Shame you disagree.
It is actually Bodger who will not confirm not by-passing our elected representatives.
Which reliable publication did this come from?
I seem to remember a general election being called. Parliament is prorogued when that happens.
Will stop there.
Wide range of sources and opinions read, from msm and sm to the crazy anarchist stuff (the guardian)
He did prorogue early to delay a report being published. 10 days.
Politically dodgy for sure and shouldn't have happened.
I'm not going to apologise for him but the situation is completely different.
He did not do it to force through epoch changing legislation against the will of Parliament. He did it for party political benefit."
If Boris as PM shuts down Parliament to force a no deal Brexit then that is just as for party political benefit as what John Major did. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations.
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
I think that the Courts should not have to be brought in to find a solution for a political problem.
However, politicians shouldn't create these problems. All Bodge has to say is that he won't prorogue Parliament, but he's trying to look tough.
It would also embarass the Queen and put the constitutional structure in crisis. It would officially her instruction on the advice of her Prime Minister. Advice that a constitutional Monarch is bound to follow. The precedent set if she feels unable to is significant.
In reality Parliament itself will, in extremis, carry a vote of know confidence or sit in defiance.
Gina Miller and John Major have both threatened legal action.
Fine. We still have the law and an independent judiciary to turn to of there is nowhere else to go.
What do you think?
I don’t know who Gina Miller is, who elected her and why she feels entitled to assemble a legal team and by-pass the MPs who were democratically elected by the people.
John Major is a hypocrite ! He prorogued parliament in 97 to avoid embarrassing questions about cash for questions .
Nice to get a reply.
Anyone can bring a legal action. You don't have to be elected to do so. A good thing in my opinion. Shame you disagree.
It is actually Bodger who will not confirm not by-passing our elected representatives.
Which reliable publication did this come from?
I seem to remember a general election being called. Parliament is prorogued when that happens.
Will stop there.
Wide range of sources and opinions read, from msm and sm to the crazy anarchist stuff (the guardian)
He did prorogue early to delay a report being published. 10 days.
Politically dodgy for sure and shouldn't have happened.
I'm not going to apologise for him but the situation is completely different.
He did not do it to force through epoch changing legislation against the will of Parliament. He did it for party political benefit.
If Boris as PM shuts down Parliament to force a no deal Brexit then that is just as for party political benefit as what John Major did. "
I genuinely don’t feel the next pm would take this action simply for the sake of his own party. It really does feel too weak a reason, when on the other hand you have all the talk of will of the people, brexit means brexit, result of the referendum etc etc.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
A Prime Minister with no popular andate, closing down Parliament to force through a policy with no popular mandate . . .
That is nothing short of a right-wing coup.
It will symbolise the failure of governance in the UK, the end of Britain as a model for democracy, accelerate the country's disintegration and plunge this country into unprecedented crisis.
Bring it on, if that is what you want.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations.
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
I think that the Courts should not have to be brought in to find a solution for a political problem.
However, politicians shouldn't create these problems. All Bodge has to say is that he won't prorogue Parliament, but he's trying to look tough.
It would also embarass the Queen and put the constitutional structure in crisis. It would officially her instruction on the advice of her Prime Minister. Advice that a constitutional Monarch is bound to follow. The precedent set if she feels unable to is significant.
In reality Parliament itself will, in extremis, carry a vote of know confidence or sit in defiance.
Gina Miller and John Major have both threatened legal action.
Fine. We still have the law and an independent judiciary to turn to of there is nowhere else to go.
What do you think?
I don’t know who Gina Miller is, who elected her and why she feels entitled to assemble a legal team and by-pass the MPs who were democratically elected by the people.
John Major is a hypocrite ! He prorogued parliament in 97 to avoid embarrassing questions about cash for questions .
Nice to get a reply.
Anyone can bring a legal action. You don't have to be elected to do so. A good thing in my opinion. Shame you disagree.
It is actually Bodger who will not confirm not by-passing our elected representatives.
Which reliable publication did this come from?
I seem to remember a general election being called. Parliament is prorogued when that happens.
Will stop there.
Wide range of sources and opinions read, from msm and sm to the crazy anarchist stuff (the guardian)
He did prorogue early to delay a report being published. 10 days.
Politically dodgy for sure and shouldn't have happened.
I'm not going to apologise for him but the situation is completely different.
He did not do it to force through epoch changing legislation against the will of Parliament. He did it for party political benefit.
If Boris as PM shuts down Parliament to force a no deal Brexit then that is just as for party political benefit as what John Major did. "
It will, bit the effect will be vastly different.
One is opportunist. Prorogue early and dodge an unfavourable report. Basic sleaze.
The other is specifically to bypass the democratic process to bring about far reaching political and economic change without Parliamentary oversight.
As I said, both bad bit the consequences are substantially different. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations.
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
I think that the Courts should not have to be brought in to find a solution for a political problem.
However, politicians shouldn't create these problems. All Bodge has to say is that he won't prorogue Parliament, but he's trying to look tough.
It would also embarass the Queen and put the constitutional structure in crisis. It would officially her instruction on the advice of her Prime Minister. Advice that a constitutional Monarch is bound to follow. The precedent set if she feels unable to is significant.
In reality Parliament itself will, in extremis, carry a vote of know confidence or sit in defiance.
Gina Miller and John Major have both threatened legal action.
Fine. We still have the law and an independent judiciary to turn to of there is nowhere else to go.
What do you think?
I don’t know who Gina Miller is, who elected her and why she feels entitled to assemble a legal team and by-pass the MPs who were democratically elected by the people.
John Major is a hypocrite ! He prorogued parliament in 97 to avoid embarrassing questions about cash for questions .
Nice to get a reply.
Anyone can bring a legal action. You don't have to be elected to do so. A good thing in my opinion. Shame you disagree.
It is actually Bodger who will not confirm not by-passing our elected representatives.
Which reliable publication did this come from?
I seem to remember a general election being called. Parliament is prorogued when that happens.
Will stop there.
Wide range of sources and opinions read, from msm and sm to the crazy anarchist stuff (the guardian)
He did prorogue early to delay a report being published. 10 days.
Politically dodgy for sure and shouldn't have happened.
I'm not going to apologise for him but the situation is completely different.
He did not do it to force through epoch changing legislation against the will of Parliament. He did it for party political benefit.
If Boris as PM shuts down Parliament to force a no deal Brexit then that is just as for party political benefit as what John Major did.
I genuinely don’t feel the next pm would take this action simply for the sake of his own party. It really does feel too weak a reason, when on the other hand you have all the talk of will of the people, brexit means brexit, result of the referendum etc etc.
"
I agree. Bodger is doing this to look tough. To look tough on Brexit though.
However, if it did happen it should be challenged by any legal means shouldn't it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Someone one wants to prevent someone from preventing MPs vote to push an unmadets vamersuon of brexit through is now... And they are the bad guy for preventing MP's have their say.
If we replaced names and policies with foreign sounding names and the like, Trump would be referring to us in his tweets!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Unlike the dissolution of Parliament, which is governed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, proroguing Parliament is a Royal Prerogative power exercisable by the Prime Minister. It does NOT require the consent of MPs.
The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity, recognized in common law and, sometimes, in civil law jurisdictions possessing a monarchy, as belonging to the sovereign and which have become widely vested in the government.
The scope of the royal prerogative is difficult to determine due to the uncodified nature of the constitution. It is clear that the existence and extent of the power is a matter of the common law of England, making the courts the final arbiter of whether a particular type of prerogative exists or not. Nevertheless, certain prerogative powers have been widely acknowledged and accepted over time, while others have fallen out of use.
Parliament has not been prorogued by a government as a means of circumventing parliamentary opposition to government policy since 1948, when Parliament was prorogued following the Lords' opposition to the Parliament Bill. The Government could only bypass the Lords after a delay of three sessions. By proroguing Parliament, the Government could hold a special short parliamentary session, thereby speeding up the process for overriding the Lords.
The Canadian Prime Minister prorogued the Canadian Parliament in 2008 in order to delay a vote of no confidence in the Government.
Once Parliament is prorogued, most parliamentary business comes to an end and any unfinished business falls. However, since the 1998–99 parliamentary session, any government public bills introduced in the House of Commons which have not yet completed their last amending stage (usually report stage in the Commons) can survive prorogation and be ‘carried over’ into the next session. This prevents the need to re-introduce bills from scratch in the next session, saving parliamentary time. The decision to carry over bills is taken by the Government and must be agreed between the ‘usual channels’ (representatives of the main parties). Bills ‘carried over’ to the next session continue from the same stage reached in the preceding session.
Given the parliamentary impasse over Brexit, some have argued that the Government should prorogue Parliament to allow it to proceed with a no deal Brexit without the threat of MPs passing legislation to try and prevent it. Such a move would be highly controversial.
If Parliament was prorogued to facilitate no deal, it would not be possible to pass any bills or remaining secondary legislation needed to prepare the UK statute book for such an outcome. It would also prevent the Government from legislating to change the ‘exit day’ currently legislated for in the EU Withdrawal Act and give effect to any new extension to Article 50.
So basically it’s a buggers muddle but Mrs Mills will probably get no reply to her letter as Prorogation is exclusively a power of government and not Parliament. In addition the PM and the Queen have weekly meetings so she would be snowed under with letters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations.
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
I think that the Courts should not have to be brought in to find a solution for a political problem.
However, politicians shouldn't create these problems. All Bodge has to say is that he won't prorogue Parliament, but he's trying to look tough.
It would also embarass the Queen and put the constitutional structure in crisis. It would officially her instruction on the advice of her Prime Minister. Advice that a constitutional Monarch is bound to follow. The precedent set if she feels unable to is significant.
In reality Parliament itself will, in extremis, carry a vote of know confidence or sit in defiance.
Gina Miller and John Major have both threatened legal action.
Fine. We still have the law and an independent judiciary to turn to of there is nowhere else to go.
What do you think?
I don’t know who Gina Miller is, who elected her and why she feels entitled to assemble a legal team and by-pass the MPs who were democratically elected by the people.
John Major is a hypocrite ! He prorogued parliament in 97 to avoid embarrassing questions about cash for questions .
Nice to get a reply.
Anyone can bring a legal action. You don't have to be elected to do so. A good thing in my opinion. Shame you disagree.
It is actually Bodger who will not confirm not by-passing our elected representatives.
Which reliable publication did this come from?
I seem to remember a general election being called. Parliament is prorogued when that happens.
Will stop there.
Wide range of sources and opinions read, from msm and sm to the crazy anarchist stuff (the guardian)
He did prorogue early to delay a report being published. 10 days.
Politically dodgy for sure and shouldn't have happened.
I'm not going to apologise for him but the situation is completely different.
He did not do it to force through epoch changing legislation against the will of Parliament. He did it for party political benefit.
If Boris as PM shuts down Parliament to force a no deal Brexit then that is just as for party political benefit as what John Major did.
I genuinely don’t feel the next pm would take this action simply for the sake of his own party. It really does feel too weak a reason, when on the other hand you have all the talk of will of the people, brexit means brexit, result of the referendum etc etc.
I agree. Bodger is doing this to look tough. To look tough on Brexit though.
However, if it did happen it should be challenged by any legal means shouldn't it?"
Again, i genuinely feel the intentions of Gina Miller are not to protect parliamentary sovereignty, but are rooted in her (and who she represents) desire to ultimately stop the uk leaving the Eu.
Her general presence and the tone of her letter has an arrogance to it that, regardless of whether i voted to stay or leave, really doesn’t sit well with me. It just doesn’t feel right.
I would be much more comfortable with the business of prorogue being dealt with (and I do think it should be dealt with) by the democratically elected representatives of the people.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
A key factor often overlooked in this is the volume of Brexit-related legislation and regulation that needs to pass through Parliament if the UK is to leave the EU on October 31.
Without it, the UK will wake up to a legal mess on November 1.
Then there is the related question of Northern Ireland.
In the absence of an executive, the civil service in Northern Ireland does not have the power to draft and implement the regulations needed for an October 31 exit.
That can be achieved only by the UK Parliament imposing direct rule from London.
None of these things is possible in the event Parliament is prorogued.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I used to think the absence of written constitution was a weakness.
I am not so sure now.
It appears that the courts here are the custodian of the constitution (as evidenced by the Gina Miller case).
The stand-off between Catalonia and the rest of Spain shows what can happen when a constitution is inflexible.
I would like to see a new constitutional settlement, however - a new Act of Union that moves the UK onto a federal footing and devolves power equitably to all four nations.
What do you think of Gina Miller sending a warning letter to Boris Johnson “don’t go and see the Queen to close Parliament or I will take you to court”?
I think that the Courts should not have to be brought in to find a solution for a political problem.
However, politicians shouldn't create these problems. All Bodge has to say is that he won't prorogue Parliament, but he's trying to look tough.
It would also embarass the Queen and put the constitutional structure in crisis. It would officially her instruction on the advice of her Prime Minister. Advice that a constitutional Monarch is bound to follow. The precedent set if she feels unable to is significant.
In reality Parliament itself will, in extremis, carry a vote of know confidence or sit in defiance.
Gina Miller and John Major have both threatened legal action.
Fine. We still have the law and an independent judiciary to turn to of there is nowhere else to go.
What do you think?
I don’t know who Gina Miller is, who elected her and why she feels entitled to assemble a legal team and by-pass the MPs who were democratically elected by the people.
John Major is a hypocrite ! He prorogued parliament in 97 to avoid embarrassing questions about cash for questions .
Nice to get a reply.
Anyone can bring a legal action. You don't have to be elected to do so. A good thing in my opinion. Shame you disagree.
It is actually Bodger who will not confirm not by-passing our elected representatives.
Which reliable publication did this come from?
I seem to remember a general election being called. Parliament is prorogued when that happens.
Will stop there.
Wide range of sources and opinions read, from msm and sm to the crazy anarchist stuff (the guardian)
He did prorogue early to delay a report being published. 10 days.
Politically dodgy for sure and shouldn't have happened.
I'm not going to apologise for him but the situation is completely different.
He did not do it to force through epoch changing legislation against the will of Parliament. He did it for party political benefit.
If Boris as PM shuts down Parliament to force a no deal Brexit then that is just as for party political benefit as what John Major did.
I genuinely don’t feel the next pm would take this action simply for the sake of his own party. It really does feel too weak a reason, when on the other hand you have all the talk of will of the people, brexit means brexit, result of the referendum etc etc.
I agree. Bodger is doing this to look tough. To look tough on Brexit though.
However, if it did happen it should be challenged by any legal means shouldn't it?
Again, i genuinely feel the intentions of Gina Miller are not to protect parliamentary sovereignty, but are rooted in her (and who she represents) desire to ultimately stop the uk leaving the Eu.
Her general presence and the tone of her letter has an arrogance to it that, regardless of whether i voted to stay or leave, really doesn’t sit well with me. It just doesn’t feel right.
I would be much more comfortable with the business of prorogue being dealt with (and I do think it should be dealt with) by the democratically elected representatives of the people.
"
I would also be more comfortable with Parliamentarians taking this in their own hands, and I think that this is what would happen.
If not, I still think that it should be resisted by any legal means possible. You haven't disagreed have you?
The fact that you personally dislike her or question her motives is neither here nor there.
The fact is that her last legal action prevented Government from completely disregarding Parliament through the entire Brexit process. Something that should never have been in question.
It is not "her letter". It is from her solicitors. It is a notice of legal intent.
Your interpretation of "tone" is your interpretation. I cannot really disagree with the text.
“It would seriously undermine parliamentary sovereignty for you, as prime minister, to prorogue parliament to prevent it from considering whether to legislate to prevent a no-deal Brexit,”
“You would be closing the doors of parliament to prevent it from legislating on the most important political issue of the day, when time is of the essence. In such circumstances it would be unlawful for you as prime minister to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament for the purpose of preventing parliament from considering the enactment of a law to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
