EU-BREXIT - Page 89 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14969475
@Nonsense


Theoretically the Queen could refuse to give assent on the advice of his or her ministers, however the consensus is that this would never happen.

The situation is particularly unlikely in light of the legal challenge that was mounted when the current Prime Minister Theresa May attempted to use another historic power – the royal prerogative – to trigger Article 50 without first consulting Parliament.


:)
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14969477
I think Peter Hitchens had it right when he said shortly after the referendum that, with Parliament opposed to leaving and the referendum result in favour of leaving, "we might be about to see what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object".

One thing I think we can all agree on (except probably Rich): David Cameron is a bell end who had absolutely no idea of the true scale of fuck-up he was creating. :lol:
By Rich
#14969484
Potemkin wrote:The issue of who is sovereign - the monarch or parliament - was settled in practice by the English Civil War(s) of the 17th century. Parliament is sovereign, and the monarch rubberstamps Parliament's decisions just to remove any doubt.

I respectfully disagree. That settlement was most certainly not reached in 1688. What was settled in 1688 was the Protestant ascendancy. I'm no expert on the period but I don't think George III was rubberstamping the will of Parliament in the conflict with the American colonies.

As it turned out there was a fairly smooth transition to the current de-facto constitution that you outlined, but I don't think this was foreordained in 1688 and was not merely the result of Britain's 17th century revolutionaries. In 1914 in Britain foreign and military policy was firmly in the hands of the parliamentary government, as opposed to Germany in 1914, where it was not. I would suggest that Mary and Anne's lack of heirs and George III madness were important to the monarch's erosion of power, but also the time spent under female monarchs. In particular if Victoria had been a man and reigned as long, I think the defacto constitution in 1914 might have looked quite different.

If people had really respected Victoria then they would have changed the succession to the eldest child, as has been belatedly done recently, in which case Wilhelm II of Germany would have also been Willian V of England and Scotland.
Last edited by Rich on 05 Dec 2018 13:44, edited 1 time in total.
By Nonsense
#14969486
[quote="Potemkin"]The issue of who is sovereign - the monarch or parliament - was settled in practice by the English Civil War(s) of the 17th century. Parliament is sovereign, and the monarch rubberstamps Parliament's decisions just to remove any doubt. The people are certainly not sovereign, and never have been. Referenda are therefore not legally binding on either the parliament or the monarch. How can they be?

WRONG -
Right back atcha! :roll:


Incorrect. The people are not sovereign. The people are sovereign in the USA, but that's because they had a popular revolution back in the 18th century. We didn't, so we're not.
Nonsense -
I explained quite simply that they, the people, ARE 'sovereign', a 'parliament' is merely a collection of our 'representatives', who, currently are empowered, by US, the people, to sit for a 'FIXED' term of 5 years, at the END of that term, parliament is 'DISSOLVED', IT NO LONGER EXIST - UNTIL a 'new' one is elected following a general election, without which, a 'new' parliament cannot form without elections, as could happen during wartime, in other words, 'continuity' is NOT recognised under the English system.

There is no sovereignty of parliament, otherwise there would be no requirement, or need, for 'democracy', ONLY the Monarchy have any 'Right of Succession'(continuity), on the other hand, OUR form of governance can & does change, when 'the worm turns'.

Likewise, a government CANNOT tax the incomes of people, 'IF' it fails to pass the annual 'Finance Act', which is why the government sought, got, opposition support for it, otherwise, frrom April 6 next year, there would be no tax revenues & we all know what that means, don't we? :roll:


The monarch does indeed hold their position in trust, but not in trust to the people but in trust to "those who come after", their own heirs and successors. In other words, they can't flog off the family silver to Johnny Foreigner. Lol.

Nonsense -
"those who come after", EXACTLY, :lol:

The issue of who is sovereign between parliament and the monarch was settled in practice in the 17th century. The issue of who is sovereign bet ween parliament and the people has not yet been settled in practice. This is simply another way of saying that Britain has not yet had its popular revolution

Nonsense -

Not exactly, as explained above, in any case, 'Magna Carta' determined the 'balance-of-power' between parliament(The people's representatives)& the Monarchy as it was under King John. 8) :lol:

If you think that 'parliament' is 'sovereign', why do you think that the following have the prefix, 'H.M'(Her\His Majesty's) attached to them, government ,Prisons, Courts, Navy, Army, Airforce, Police etc?

Parliament only makes Law, it is enacted by Royal Asent, you could say that the 'Law', which, in this country, is based on the biblical character of Abraham in practice, it was created by King Arthur, known as , the 'DOME', although the Vikings, Anglo Saxons & Normans also made further additions to the legal evolution of Law in this country.

Again, there is the 'Royal Pardon', by which any 'subject' may make a direct appeal for, for example, a prisoner sentenced to death in a court of law, that means that the 'Sovereign' is indeed 'SOVEREIGN'. 8)
Last edited by Nonsense on 05 Dec 2018 15:25, edited 5 times in total.
By Nonsense
#14969487
Heisenberg wrote:I think Peter Hitchens had it right when he said shortly after the referendum that, with Parliament opposed to leaving and the referendum result in favour of leaving, "we might be about to see what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object".

One thing I think we can all agree on (except probably Rich): David Cameron is a bell end who had absolutely no idea of the true scale of fuck-up he was creating. :lol:

Nonsense -

Typical HITCHENS, why didn't he just say, "Let's wait for the proverbials to hit the fan" :lol: :lol: :lol:
By Nonsense
#14969490
[quote="ingliz"]@Nonsense


Theoretically the Queen could refuse to give assent on the advice of his or her ministers, however the consensus is that this would never happen.

Nonsesne -

'Theoretical' but, if the people's opinions were in line with the Sovereign's, then parliament would expect to pay a price eventually, at the next election, by such a government losing.

ingliz -

The situation is particularly unlikely in light of the legal challenge that was mounted when the current Prime Minister Theresa May attempted to use another historic power – the royal prerogative – to trigger Article 50 without first consulting Parliament.

Nonsense -

The Prime Minister was entitled to use the Royal Perogative on that occasion, but MP's wanted\still do, to scupper BREXIT, however, parliament itself passed Artricle 50 :lol: :lol: :lol: (they had no real 'choice' following the referendum), so we had best wait for December 11th for sorting the 'walkers' from the 'talkers' & seeing the proverbials hit that fan. :lol: :lol:

Look at the Royal Perogative in context of leaving the E.U, had Theresa MAY rejected(she should have) any notion of parliament having it's say on the matter, then none of the current 'subversives'(Remainers) would be around to tell her what to do right now in parliament in their attempts to scupper it.

NOT only that, she should NOT have tried to make a 'BREXIT' deal, 'LEAVE' means LEAVE-WITHOUT 'BREXIT', for good or bad, it's also the reason that the Royal Perogative was appropiate as the means of delivering 'Leave', NOT for political expediancy, but, simply because it was a 'people's' decision- to Leave NOT parliaments.
By Rich
#14969507
Heisenberg wrote:One thing I think we can all agree on (except probably Rich): David Cameron is a bell end who had absolutely no idea of the true scale of fuck-up he was creating. :lol:

The fuck up was the massive immigration inflows into Europe since the second world war, enabled by politicians of many stripes both British and Continental. But at a deeper level it was the failure of European democrats since the end of the First World War to pool sovereignty and build a supranational European democracy, that respects national differences and cultures, but defends our common, culture, values and independence against the alien forces outside of democratic Europe.

I hear this constant criticism of Cameron, but I've yet to hear one of the critics tell us what they would have done to stop the haemorrhage of Conservative voters to UKIP. Its nearly 6 years since David Cameron announced his plan for the referendum. Last time I checked the Conservatives were still in government. In fact last time I checked Britain was still in the EU.
User avatar
By Beren
#14969519
Theresa May seems to successfully unite the nation with her deal. At the end of the 5-day Brexit deal debate in parliament there'll be complete agreement that her deal is unacceptable and she's got to go.
By Nonsense
#14969574
Beren wrote:Theresa May seems to successfully unite the nation with her deal. At the end of the 5-day Brexit deal debate in parliament there'll be complete agreement that her deal is unacceptable and she's got to go.



Nonsense -

That just about sums it up in a nutshell. :)
By Rich
#14969578
Has no one noticed the eerie silence of Sinn Fein? The Northern Ireland Assembly conveniently shut itself down prior to article 50 being called. We've heard barely a peek about it since. I can only conclude that Sinn Fein were promised a United Ireland in return for keeping stumm throughout the Brexit negotiations.

There seemed to be some surprise that Corbyn didn't go in for the kill against May at Prime Minister's questions. It must be remembered that the Provisional IRA has two political wings, Sinn Fein, who don't take up their seats and the Campaign group of MPs that do. Corbyn is a British Marxist, a United Ireland is his number one priority, yes even above the Palestinian cause.
By foxdemon
#14970278
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/30/brexit-uk-may-never-recover-12bn-invested-in-eu-galileo-satellite-system


Hmm...UK contributes 1.2 billon pounds but then gets excluded from Galileo GPS. So that’s the way Euro absolutists work.

I for one welcome the people of Britain back into the Anglo sphere, the realm of the free. Sooner or later we will have to start dropping bombs on Europe once more in order to liberate their people from those nasty autocrats.

Image
User avatar
By anarchist23
#14970790
Beren wrote:Theresa May seems to successfully unite the nation with her deal. At the end of the 5-day Brexit deal debate in parliament there'll be complete agreement that her deal is unacceptable and she's got to go.


It seems the vote on Tuesday will probably be called off.


https://i.imgur.com/tmiNNjo.jpg
By snapdragon
#14970930
I've spent most of the past year or so metaphorically standing on the sidelines, watching events unfold and keeping my gob shut for fear of putting a spanner in the works.

Pointless, of course, because I've absolutely no influence whatsoever with anyone involved......like everyone else here, I suppose.

Still, there is now a real of glimmer of hope. The EU court has ruled Britain can unilaterally call off Brexit without any loss of benefits.

It could really happen.
By layman
#14970932
Yes it’s an interesting development that I’m not sure many predicted.

Certainly many will be pissed off with us if we called it all off but perhaps in learning some humility, relations can be repaired.
By snapdragon
#14970934
@layman There's going to a lot of people pissed off no matter what happens.


I'd rather there be people pissed off at being cut off from their mythical land of kittens and butterflies, which has a long line of countries just waiting to give us whatever kind of deal we want in order to have the honour of trading with us, than being pissed off at high energy costs and a shortage of medicines.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14970936
Tomorrows is DA vote. :excited:
By Rugoz
#14970943
snapdragon wrote:The EU court has ruled Britain can unilaterally call off Brexit without any loss of benefits.


It should give the UK more bargaining power for a Brexit deal.
By snapdragon
#14970945
Rugoz wrote:It should give the UK more bargaining power for a Brexit deal.


Far from it. The rest of the EU don't want us to leave, so it'll be more likely to make them dig their heels in further.
By Rugoz
#14970947
snapdragon wrote:Far from it. The rest of the EU don't want us to leave, so it'll be more likely to make them dig their heels in further.


Point is, being part of the EU with veto rights gives the UK more leverage in negotiations. I don't know why the UK left before making a deal anyway. The perspective of having a trolling UK within its ranks might encourage the EU to improve the withdrawal agreement.
  • 1
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92

Yes, @Hindsite , you must be sad that you and ot[…]

In fairness, would ANYONE be able to do a better […]

Ashes to ashes, Dust to dust Really fast and qui[…]

Should White House press conferences happen at my […]