How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 7)
Discussion
Leicester Loyal said:
Brilliant isn't it. When Bercow and the other remainers try to block parliment and the referendum outcome they're using common sense and doing what's right. When JRM does it it's the worst thing mankind has ever done and he should be hung drawn and quartered immediately
A legally held Referendum at that.Open to everyone with the right to vote on UK matters, even hypocrites. Unfortunately.
Tuna said:
Elysium said:
mx5nut said:
JRM wants to put parliamentary sovereignty on hold until he gets his way.
Brexiters continue to blindly defend him because he's (allegedly) on "their side".
I think you may be referring to this? Brexiters continue to blindly defend him because he's (allegedly) on "their side".
https://news.sky.com/story/government-should-shut-...
Absolutely outrageous. I cannot believe a sitting MP has openly proposed that the Queen should be asked to to close parliament to prevent it doing it's job.
Grieve is proposing that MPs should be able to set the agenda for parliamentary business on a very limited number of occasions. This will only happen if our democratically elected representatives vote for it and it’s only necessary because our Govt is attempting to prevent those representatives from doing their jobs by depriving them of an opportunity to debate the most pressing issue facing our country.
Rees Mogg is suggesting that the queen should be asked to close parliament down to prevent those elected representatives from doing their jobs.
Grieve is fighting for more democracy. Rees Mogg is proposing to use the Queen to create a dictatorship. Which is clearly much much worse.
The only reason anyone would say otherwise, is because they have a vested interest in Rees Moggs objective. That is sacrificing what is right, for what is convenient.
Tuna said:
mattmurdock said:
Tuna said:
As opposed to Grieve's attempt to allow a minority group to override the sitting government? Which do you think is the more outrageous?
Let's call it as it is, eh? They are both just as outrageous as each other. This apparently is what we get if we take our sovereignty back, a group of people who are happy to try and amend or bypass it for their own purposes.There is a bit of a difference between trying to amend parliamentary procedure permanently by law and asking the Queen to step in and 'adjudicate' when people are over stepping the mark. The latter is pretty much the definition of sovereignty surely?
It would be lawful, because parliament decide it. That’s why they are there.m
The queen is neutral. She does not ‘adjudicate’ and using her to shut down an elected Parliament to get your own way is not democratic or moral. It is shameful.
gooner1 said:
Leicester Loyal said:
Brilliant isn't it. When Bercow and the other remainers try to block parliment and the referendum outcome they're using common sense and doing what's right. When JRM does it it's the worst thing mankind has ever done and he should be hung drawn and quartered immediately
A legally held Referendum at that.Open to everyone with the right to vote on UK matters, even hypocrites. Unfortunately.
JRM is proposing to circumvent parliament to get his version of Brexit and hang the consequences to anyone else.
There is nothing hypocritical about opposing that at all. I had some respect for the man before, but no longer.
Vanden Saab said:
mx5nut said:
Seems Brexiters are trying to outdo eachother with their brazen contempt for our country at the moment. This comes shortly after another publicly asked a foreign state to undermine parliamentary sovereignty.
Sovereignty ... the power of a country to control its own governmentCountry, not Parliament....
No wonder you are so confused if you don't even understand what Sovereignty means...
Elysium said:
Except this is not about blocking the referendum outcome. It is about creating space for parliament to do its job and delivering it in an orderly professional way.
JRM is proposing to circumvent parliament to get his version of Brexit and hang the consequences to anyone else.
There is nothing hypocritical about opposing that at all. I had some respect for the man before, but no longer.
What is Grieves ultimate aim? Edited to add.JRM is proposing to circumvent parliament to get his version of Brexit and hang the consequences to anyone else.
There is nothing hypocritical about opposing that at all. I had some respect for the man before, but no longer.
Who gave the order to invoke Art 50.?
What were the time limitations of invoking Art 50?
What is the default position of invoking Art 50?
Edited by gooner1 on Wednesday 23 January 23:30
Elysium said:
What is wrong with trying to “amend parliamentary procedure by law”?
It would be lawful, because parliament decide it. That’s why they are there.m
The queen is neutral. She does not ‘adjudicate’ and using her to shut down an elected Parliament to get your own way is not democratic or moral. It is shameful.
It is none of those things it is only lawful. If you have a problem with the law as it stands you should campaign for it to be changed. We have checks and balances in our parliament exactly to prevent MPs amending procedure too far. I do not think you really believe that Parliament should have unlimited power to change any rule they like or ignore the people who elected them but may be you do.It would be lawful, because parliament decide it. That’s why they are there.m
The queen is neutral. She does not ‘adjudicate’ and using her to shut down an elected Parliament to get your own way is not democratic or moral. It is shameful.
I also do not think that it will be enforced just that it is a way of warning Grieve and his mates to think a little more rationally about what it is they are doing.. We will see how successful it has been next week.
gooner1 said:
Elysium said:
Except this is not about blocking the referendum outcome. It is about creating space for parliament to do its job and delivering it in an orderly professional way.
JRM is proposing to circumvent parliament to get his version of Brexit and hang the consequences to anyone else.
There is nothing hypocritical about opposing that at all. I had some respect for the man before, but no longer.
What is Grieves ultimate aim?JRM is proposing to circumvent parliament to get his version of Brexit and hang the consequences to anyone else.
There is nothing hypocritical about opposing that at all. I had some respect for the man before, but no longer.
My belief is that he would prefer that Brexit does not happen, but that if it must, it should be done properly and that parliament has a duty to hold the govt to account, ensuring that we leave in a professional orderly way.
Vanden Saab said:
Elysium said:
What is wrong with trying to “amend parliamentary procedure by law”?
It would be lawful, because parliament decide it. That’s why they are there.m
The queen is neutral. She does not ‘adjudicate’ and using her to shut down an elected Parliament to get your own way is not democratic or moral. It is shameful.
It is none of those things it is only lawful. If you have a problem with the law as it stands you should campaign for it to be changed. We have checks and balances in our parliament exactly to prevent MPs amending procedure too far. I do not think you really believe that Parliament should have unlimited power to change any rule they like or ignore the people who elected them but may be you do.It would be lawful, because parliament decide it. That’s why they are there.m
The queen is neutral. She does not ‘adjudicate’ and using her to shut down an elected Parliament to get your own way is not democratic or moral. It is shameful.
I also do not think that it will be enforced just that it is a way of warning Grieve and his mates to think a little more rationally about what it is they are doing.. We will see how successful it has been next week.
The Govt may have the legal authority to dissolve parliament, but it would be unprecedented to do so purely to prevent MP’s from representing their constituents on an issue of enormous national significance.
It is undemocratic, because it would blatantly frustrate our representative democracy. It is immoral, because it abuses power and it is shameful, because it is cowardly.
I don’t believe it will happen for a moment. Which makes it all the more foolish of Mogg to propose it.
Elysium said:
He publicly supports a second referendum, but the amendments he has proposed or intends to propose are all aimed at increasing parliaments ability to scrutinise the Govts handling of Brexit.
My belief is that he would prefer that Brexit does not happen, but that if it must, it should be done properly and that parliament has a duty to hold the govt to account, ensuring that we leave in a professional orderly way.
While I respect your opinion, the phrase "He publicly supports a second referendum"My belief is that he would prefer that Brexit does not happen, but that if it must, it should be done properly and that parliament has a duty to hold the govt to account, ensuring that we leave in a professional orderly way.
a touch ambiguous. I'm of the opinion that Grieve, who has always been pro EU, wants
nothing more than to see the referendum overturned by any means necerssary.
He just won't admit it.
If Grieve can use Parlimentary shenanigans for his own causes, why, if it's legally ok,
cannot Mogg? At least with the latter, everyone knows why he may be prepared to do so.
Imo, of course.
Elysium said:
The parliamentary session is due to run until the summer. The only ‘normal’ reason for the Govt to dissolve parliament would be to call an election.
The Govt may have the legal authority to dissolve parliament, but it would be unprecedented to do so purely to prevent MP’s from representing their constituents on an issue of enormous national significance.
It is undemocratic, because it would blatantly frustrate our representative democracy. It is immoral, because it abuses power and it is shameful, because it is cowardly.
I don’t believe it will happen for a moment. Which makes it all the more foolish of Mogg to propose it.
It seems a great deal of MP's are not representing their constituents , at least not in theThe Govt may have the legal authority to dissolve parliament, but it would be unprecedented to do so purely to prevent MP’s from representing their constituents on an issue of enormous national significance.
It is undemocratic, because it would blatantly frustrate our representative democracy. It is immoral, because it abuses power and it is shameful, because it is cowardly.
I don’t believe it will happen for a moment. Which makes it all the more foolish of Mogg to propose it.
manner their constituents voted for.
Elysium said:
The parliamentary session is due to run until the summer. The only ‘normal’ reason for the Govt to dissolve parliament would be to call an election.
The Govt may have the legal authority to dissolve parliament, but it would be unprecedented to do so purely to prevent MP’s from representing their constituents on an issue of enormous national significance.
It is undemocratic, because it would blatantly frustrate our representative democracy. It is immoral, because it abuses power and it is shameful, because it is cowardly.
I don’t believe it will happen for a moment. Which makes it all the more foolish of Mogg to propose it.
Unprecedented that is a good word ... where have I heard that before...Ah yes...The Govt may have the legal authority to dissolve parliament, but it would be unprecedented to do so purely to prevent MP’s from representing their constituents on an issue of enormous national significance.
It is undemocratic, because it would blatantly frustrate our representative democracy. It is immoral, because it abuses power and it is shameful, because it is cowardly.
I don’t believe it will happen for a moment. Which makes it all the more foolish of Mogg to propose it.
new statesman said:
What does John Bercow’s unprecedented action mean for Brexit – and for him?
The Speaker’s decision has no root in precedent but he is relying on the one rule that really matters in the British constitution.
I love how you think one unprecedented action is ok while another identical one is not, especially as it could be argued that the second is only a reaction to the first and therefore far more valid. The Speaker’s decision has no root in precedent but he is relying on the one rule that really matters in the British constitution.
gooner1 said:
While I respect your opinion, the phrase "He publicly supports a second referendum"
a touch ambiguous. I'm of the opinion that Grieve, who has always been pro EU, wants
nothing more than to see the referendum overturned by any means necerssary.
He just won't admit it.
If Grieve can use Parlimentary shenanigans for his own causes, why, if it's legally ok,
cannot Mogg? At least with the latter, everyone knows why he may be prepared to do so.
Imo, of course.
Why is it that people like me and you can quite clearly see neither JRM, nor Grieve should be using Parliment, the Queen or any other group for their own causes and what they personally believe in. Yet people like Elysium, for some unknown reason defend Grieve, while blasting JRM. I genuinely see no logic. It's a scary thought what people are willing to overlook just because they agree with a stance. a touch ambiguous. I'm of the opinion that Grieve, who has always been pro EU, wants
nothing more than to see the referendum overturned by any means necerssary.
He just won't admit it.
If Grieve can use Parlimentary shenanigans for his own causes, why, if it's legally ok,
cannot Mogg? At least with the latter, everyone knows why he may be prepared to do so.
Imo, of course.
Good post.Elysium said:
The parliamentary session is due to run until the summer. The only ‘normal’ reason for the Govt to dissolve parliament would be to call an election.
The Govt may have the legal authority to dissolve parliament, but it would be unprecedented to do so purely to prevent MP’s from representing their constituents on an issue of enormous national significance.
It is undemocratic, because it would blatantly frustrate our representative democracy. It is immoral, because it abuses power and it is shameful, because it is cowardly.
I don’t believe it will happen for a moment. Which makes it all the more foolish of Mogg to propose it.
Except the MPs are NOT representing their constituents, they are trying to overturn their vote. It is the MPs who are trying to frustrate democracy, they that are acting immoral by abusing the power bestrode on them by voters, by defying those same voters in order to ensure they have a cushy bolthole at the EU when kicked out of office by UK voters.The Govt may have the legal authority to dissolve parliament, but it would be unprecedented to do so purely to prevent MP’s from representing their constituents on an issue of enormous national significance.
It is undemocratic, because it would blatantly frustrate our representative democracy. It is immoral, because it abuses power and it is shameful, because it is cowardly.
I don’t believe it will happen for a moment. Which makes it all the more foolish of Mogg to propose it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff