https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Mr Johnson suspended - or prorogued - Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but judges said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October.
Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme."
[...]Delivering its conclusions, the Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale, said: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.
She added that it was important to emphasise the case was "not about when and on what terms" the UK left the EU, but about the decision to suspend Parliament.
Speaker of the Commons John Bercow said MPs needed to return "in light of the explicit judgement", and he had "instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare... for the resumption of business" from 11:30 BST on Wednesday.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday September 25 2019, @02:59PM (112 children)
Don't know about the constitutionality, bit it sure looked "wrong" to me. In effect, "To make sure you can't do something that I don't like, I'm suspending all of you!" Just wrong, I say.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:02PM (102 children)
Worth noting that in the writing of the Magna Carta, where proroguing was formally created, this was considered a very fair deal between the King(not PM) and the Lords. "You can come together and make demands of me, but if you piss me off I can tell you to go home"
Monarchy is a hell of a drug.
(Score: 4, Disagree) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:16PM (75 children)
if you piss me off I can tell you to go home
Considering parliament's incompetence over the Brexit thing, sending them home (without pay) would be the best option.
The people voted for Brexit. Parliament is obligated to give it to them. Their failure is prefect grounds for suspension.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Funny) by ilPapa on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:20PM (40 children)
I'm starting to think that Runaway1956 and Fustakrakich have switched accounts. It's like Freaky Friday, but with SoylentNews accounts.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:27PM (39 children)
I'm sorry. Did I say something incorrect? C'mon, man, work with me here. Where's the beef?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:36PM (13 children)
The beef is the country has spent the 3 years after the yes/no referendum figuring out what it actually means instead of the 3 years before.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:09PM (12 children)
The people voted to leave three years ago in an election. The problems are due to an incompetent parliament. Which unfortunately, is a bad reflection on the people that vote for them, which really is a bad reflection on majority rule in general.
God save the queen
The fascist regime
They made you a moron
A potential H bomb
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @05:20PM (6 children)
The truth comes out!!!
Fusta is a monarchist, this explains his push to make people apathetic about voting. Yuck.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:11PM (4 children)
his push to make people apathetic about voting
?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @07:16PM (3 children)
"Vote xyz so we can get election reform!"
U: "Don't bother, if they identify as a politician there is no point! We need election reform first!"
Eternal chicken and egg problem with your posts. Maybe you're just a naive idealist? But I'm sticking with "sowing apathy with an 'activist' attitude."
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday September 25 2019, @10:55PM (1 child)
Meh, from here it looks more like "development stalled in 8th grade at the Hot Topic, thinks blanket knee-jerk cynicism is what the cool kids are doing."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 26 2019, @01:59AM
thinks blanket knee-jerk cynicism is what the cool kids are doing.
:-) Heh, you would know, even without a clue. But I'm a happy "cynic". Not the least bit angry, depressed, or suicidal, just because the people around me are nuts.
Look outside the plane...
Oh my goodness! The engine's on fire!
Look out the other side...
Oh dear! That one too!
Which one do you wanna shut down?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 26 2019, @01:45AM
But I'm sticking with "sowing apathy with an 'activist' attitude."
That would be because you don't know what you're talking about. You are just demanding that people play along with your favorite tribe. I'm asking people to look the other way, ignore the bling, and seek out what that want instead waiting for their mass media to feed them bullshit. It's a wild ass dream, but since what you people do isn't working so well, maybe you oughta take a chance, because, with a 95% reelection rate, all your complaining is also pure bullshit.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:09AM
Ferkin ass-kissing suck up to Royals, Fusta! What a total subject! A serf! A person of no freedom! There are no kings, because there are no longer enough monarchist suck-ups to make the system work! I suggest that Parliament vote to dissolve the British Monarchy, who are actually Krauts, after all, and use the fortune they hold for the best interests of the people of the UK, like buying milkshakes for each and every Briton that perchance encounters Nigel Farage, and paying for the NHS to the level it should be, and getting rid of the House of Dementia, also known as the House of Lords. Those bastards need to get real jobs, after we strip them of their wealth. Yes, this does mean that khallow will never visit the UK, but like the failure of British Racist Objection to Polish People Living Amoungst Them (BROPPLA), or "Brexit", this is a good thing. Keep a stiff upper, and carry on.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:11PM
And before the vote they were told lots of lies, and they were also told "This is just advisory. We don't need to do what you recommend if we don't want to." And it was a very narrow passage (51%?), and a lot of legal voters weren't allowed to vote. Etc.
Given all the problems the only thing that vote really proved was that people were unhappy with the government. In fact many voters explicitly said that they voted they way they did ONLY because the government wanted them to vote the other way.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by turgid on Wednesday September 25 2019, @10:25PM (3 children)
This is a very simplistic analysis and it's wrong. I won't go through why for the umpteenth time, however "the people" is a misnomer. My sister didn't get a vote. As a result, she has had to take German citizenship. My best hope, living in England, is that Scotland votes for independence next year. If I am extremely lucky, my employer will find me a job on the Continent next year.
Parliament is our sovereign democracy in the UK. We elect representatives to the house of Commons. Referenda have no legal weight and people like my sister were excluded.
The referendum did not take into account the fact that the UK is made up of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, it treated us all like some sort of "average England."
We now have openly fascist rhetoric in the popular press and in our Parliament.
Finally, this rhetoric includes the old phrase "the will of the people." No such thing can exist in a free multi party democracy BY DEFINITION.
We have a Parliament where our multiple parties can discuss and vote on policies.
This Parliament should not be and must not be suspended, dispersed, prorogued of impeded just because it suits a particular faction of MPs in that very house.
How dare they deny us our democracy.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0, Troll) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @05:30AM
True nutz. Always has been. I dare hope maybe my great-grand nephews might see something else. Then I check the news and it just more retarded insanity.
"My sister didn't get a vote. As a result, she has had to take German citizenship."
So she's a German national?
"The referendum did not take into account the fact that the UK is made up of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, it treated us all like some sort of "average England.""
That just doesn't seem to be true. It was broken down quite explicitly into 'constituencies.'
"We now have openly fascist rhetoric in the popular press and in our Parliament."
Do you indeed?
"No such thing can exist in a free multi party democracy BY DEFINITION."
Bullshit.
More likely to be fabricated than real? I'd have backed you there.
But no such thing? Oh please. Shut up and sniff my boxers, jackass.
"This Parliament should not be and must not be suspended, dispersed, prorogued"
Even though Parliament has previously been prorogued more often than not. Right. Ok.
Don't sniff my boxers, actually. No, I'm not going to ship them to you. Go away.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Thursday September 26 2019, @05:46AM (1 child)
Something similar happened here in Canada about a decade back. Facing a no confidence vote the next day that the PM would lose, he prorogued Parliament, which was a shit move. One surprising thing was how many people, Conservatives, who were governing, went on about a no confidence vote and then the opposition parties forming government as a coalition with one party doing a supply and confidence agreement, was undemocratic. Like they have no idea how a Parliamentary democracy works. We vote for an MP and Parliament chooses the government, or rather who ever has the support of Parliament is asked to form a government by the Queens representative.
We went through a similar referendum with Quebec (actually 2) where the stay side won by 51 or 52 percent. Afterwards the government passed the Clarity Act which basically said such referendums need a super majority so the will of the people is clear.
Notice the leave side goes on about the decision being final, yet if the vote had been 51% stay, they'd be insisting on another referendum.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:15AM
Quebec voted to stay in the EU? Sacré bleu! Zut alors! Mon Dieu! And here I thought Canada was in North America, even if they are not very American, what with the "eh?" and "hosehead", and the Poutine. But they do suck up to the Brits, except for the Québécois, who Fart in their general direction.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:06PM (9 children)
The referendum was the most amateurishly set up one I ever remember in any country/regime I can remember. For something as fundamental as that, there's no way a barely-more-than-50% proportion of a barely-more-than-60% turnout should have been good enough to change things. One little impeachment of one non-crook requires 67% of all valid voters in some systems, for example. Changing the lives of >60M people - 32% is fine; changing the life of 1 person and his cronies - 67% required. Compare and contrast.
And they didn't vote for brexit, per se - as there's no uniquely defined brexit. There are a range of brexits, all different from each other and sometimes wildly incompatible. Not one was voted for.
What do you want to listen to on the car stereo? Anything but silence!
What do you want to have for supper tonight? Anything but an empty plate!
Where shall we go on holiday this year? Anywhere that's not home!
These are not usefully answered questions.
What do you want our relationship with the EU to be? Anything but what it is right now!
Likewise, that's not a usefully answered question.
We gleaned nothing that we can sensibly act on from the referendum. As I said, it was how it was designed that's the problem. I'm guessing it was a game of dare set up by an absolute idiot who didn't understand the people who he was governing. That would be a British prime minister to the core, in particular a Conservative one - arrogant and stupid. Which is even worse than the opposition who are mostly just stupid.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:27PM (5 children)
>A minority of the people voted for brexit
Anyone not taking part in a referendum is reasonably giving own vote for the majority voice. As such, around 70% of UK voters supported brexit. You lost, deal with it.
>There are a range of brexits
Anything that leaves UK under the influence of EU cannot be called Brexit. All the alt-brexits were invented by pro-EU camp that wants to overrule the voice of the people and keep UK subservient. What parliament is doing cannot be morally seen as anything but treason.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 25 2019, @05:23PM (3 children)
> around 70% of UK voters
How do you make it 70 %? Ithe vote was a very slim majority, 51.9% according to wikipedia.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:58PM (2 children)
People that voted to leave plus people that did not vote, thus accepted the outcome of the election. This gives us 70% of electorate, give or take 5% as I did not check the actual numbers.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 25 2019, @09:32PM
No, you really did not.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @03:03PM
And those people that did not vote would presumably all count in favour of remaining if the outcome of the referendum had been 49%-51% the other way?
I accept that including abstainers in totals of "people who didn't vote fox X" is technically correct (but a misleading use of statistics), but I don't see how they can be counted in favour of a particular outcome.
Even if you claim that "if you don't vote, then you're accepting the status quo", that would mean they'd have been siding with not leaving. And Parliament didn't set any stipulations of "a majority in favour, plus X% of the total electorate", like they did [in Scotland in 1979 [wikipedia.org].
It's fair to say that those that don't vote must accept the result, even if they don't support it. But you can't go as far as saying that they all support it too.
(I can think of a certain Prime Minister who's recently been telling people he accepts a certain result, even though he doesn't support it.)
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday October 01 2019, @05:16PM
Uhm, no. Abstaining from the vote is not a vote for the majority, and in fact plays into what we in the 'States call "mandate" in a way contrary to the majority position: the lower your participation, the less you get to brag about "the will of the people" in the outcome. It covers all those people who, for example, feel "I could go for an EU exit, but only if you guys do it correctly." This particular case has a strong interest in continued representation by Parliament during the process, and it is absolutely a violation of their democratic rights to remove the governing body from action even for this limited time.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 5, Informative) by choose another one on Wednesday September 25 2019, @05:39PM (2 children)
That is not how EU accession referendums work, in multiple countries not just the UK. If you look at past referendums your way:
In the UK, a minority of the electorate voted to join the EEC in 1975, we joined.
In 1994 Finland joined with 40% of the electorate in favour and Sweden with 43%, Norway had 42% in favour so they didn't join.
In 2012 in Croatia, less than 30% were in favour, so they joined.
The actual figures for the UK 2016 were 51.9% on a turnout of 72.2% - which is 37.5% by my reckoning (more than a third, a higher percentage than it took for Croatia to join)
In terms of absolute voter numbers, more people voted to leave in 2016 than voted to join the EEC (technically, to validate the decision to join) in 1975.
The French approved the Maastricht treaty, which created the European Union by a smaller percentage margin and on a smaller percentage turnout, than we voted to leave in 2016.
Summary: EU referendums don't in fact work the way you think they do, or think they should, anywhere. Our 2016 vote worked essentially the same way as all the others.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 26 2019, @07:41AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Thursday September 26 2019, @02:10PM
My bad, I snipped the quote of your point a little too much, I was replying to this bit as well:
My point is that the UK referendum was set up in exactly the same way as the previous one and very similar to many "country/regime"s that you appeared to have forgotten.
Your impeachment example (damn, snipped to much again) is in fact the odd one out - here a simple majority can throw a PM out or hold him hostage as a puppet, and no vote at all is required to prosecute him for e.g. misconduct in public office (just money for lawyers, completely waste as it was thrown out).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:36PM (14 children)
'The people' voted for 'Brexit'. Unfortunately, no one decided to define what this meant before the election, so we were left with ludicrous soundbites like 'Brexit means Brexit'. The Leave campaign made a large number of completely incompatible promises and now Parliament is being told that if they don't satisfy all of them simultaneously they're violating the 'will of the people'. They're starting to realise that the referendum had 48% of the voters choosing a single self-consistent thing and 52% choosing some subset of half a dozen mutually incompatible options. When they negotiated a deal, they discovered that the option that does the least damage to the British economy was to remain following all of the EU rules, keep paying into the EU budget, and stop having seats in the Parliament or Council: not exactly a great way of 'reclaiming sovereignty'. On the other hand, if you opt out of following the EU rules then you can't remain part of the common market (which the Leave campaign promised that we could).
It is disingenuous to blame Parliament when you're saying 'look, the people voted three years ago that grass is blue and the sky is green, Parliament has had three years to fix this, and they've still failed.' California is in a similar situation, where someone had the bright idea to make it possible for people to separately vote for initiatives that the state government must enact and vote against funding them. When 'the people' vote for a set of mutually incompatible things, it is not the fault of the legislature that they are unable to implement them.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:45PM (4 children)
It is disingenuous to blame Parliament
No, they could have stated the truth at the beginning. What went down was pure political pandering to deep pockets..
But yes, blaming parliament is wrong. I have to blame the people that vote for them. If they don't like it, only they can change it.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @05:54PM (3 children)
So where does this stand in your opinion when it wasn't sold on the truth from the start, particularly when the one who sold the biggest lies about it is now the PM (or am I wrong and you guys really have been forced by the EU to standardize on only one condom size)? I don't see how you can't insist on a new vote from that standpoint. The Brexiteers fight that tooth and nail because they know that they'll get crushed on a second vote.
There is also a huge difference between a non-binding "should we leave" referendum and a 'Yes we will leave' declaration. This "going against the will of the people" is entirely disingenuous.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:16PM (2 children)
I don't see how you can't insist on a new vote from that standpoint.
It would be meddling in international affairs. The Brits have to decide what they want. By the looks of things it appears they have a bit of trouble making up their minds. Parliament mirrors that indecision.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Thursday September 26 2019, @05:53AM (1 child)
One thing for sure is that if the referendum had gone the other way, the leavers would be demanding another referendum.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:20AM
Eh, so one side is mad, and other is wimpy and cowardly. Nice choice people leave themselves. I find that to be the more interesting story.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:55PM (6 children)
It meant activating article 50, which was done on 29 March 2017.
That being the case, the UK appears to have legally ceased membership in the EU on 29 March 2019.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:34AM (5 children)
Except for the fact that all parties involved (UK and the other 27) agreed to extend the negociating period as specified in part 3 of article 50. Twice.
And the way things are going, a third extension looks likely too.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:45AM (4 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @01:31PM (3 children)
Legally, the extension is allowed by in part 3 of article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which all the member states of the European Union (including the UK) have ratified:
There's nothing there that implies there needs to be a particular justification for doing so, only that everyone has to agree to it. As written, I'm sure that was a practical measure, to cover scenarios such as "we've almost finished this negotiation, but need a bit more time to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's". There's no sense in being forced to follow a particular deadline if everyone involved agrees to move it.
If your mention of "legal justification" is meant to echo the Supreme Court case, you'll have to help me join the dots together. The Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister couldn't use his prerogative powers (without the agreement of Parliament) to disrupt the workings of Parliament without reasonable cause. In the case of extensions to the negotiation period, if every country agrees to an extension (in the matter that they have all ratified into law), how could it be without legal justification?
(I will grant you that the reasons for a potential third extension probably weren't foreseen when the Lisbon Treaty was drawn up. But if there's a unanimous agreement to give one...)
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @03:46PM (2 children)
Under that provision the EC and the UK *could have* agreed to extend the time, but that doesn't appear to have happened.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday September 27 2019, @09:06AM (1 child)
Concentrating on the second extension (to October 2019) for the sake of simplicity, we have...
A letter requesting an extension [service.gov.uk] until June, sent by Theresa May
Conclusions of a special meeting of the European Council [europa.eu] held to discuss the above letter, when it was decided to offer a flexible extension until October
A letter in reply [www.gov.uk], accepting [service.gov.uk] the October extension offered
and then a series of letters [europa.eu] covering technical changes to the existing agreements to reflect the change of date (such as this one [legislation.gov.uk]).
It appears to me that this is documentary evidence of an agreement. Or were you expecting a big sheet of paper with 28 signatures on it?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday September 27 2019, @02:36PM
October is coming up quickly though.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday September 26 2019, @07:46AM (1 child)
Who came up with the wording on the referendum? It wasn't 'the people'.
The wording was clear: "Vote for remain, or vote for colourless green ideas sleeping furiously; we promise we will act on whatever the majority decides" (yes, that final clause was explicitly there too).
Govt. shot itself in the foot with a 12-guage by making this farce even possible.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @03:28PM
The wording was made as clear as possible, on the advice of the electoral commission:
The trouble is that while it made the question simple and unbiased, it also meant that there was a lot of room for interpretation by advocates on either side. Compare that question with the style that was preferred back in the late 1970s:
Not as pretty a question, but there was no scope for argument over how to implement the result.
(Score: 4, Informative) by pe1rxq on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:34PM (15 children)
No it is not.
First of all the people voted in a NON binding referendum. So they are not obligated to give it to them at all.
The MPs also got there job based on a vote from the same people, with an actual obligation to govern on their behalf.
And although the people voted for 'brexit' with a small majority they convieniently did not mention what kind of brexit: deal or no-deal.
I am pretty sure that after years fooling around the people will vote quite differently if there was a third referendum (the first one was in the 1970s)
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:10PM (9 children)
Love the way it was referred to as "non-binding" only after Leave won. If this one was non-binding then 1974 wasn't, so why did government enact the referendum on joining the EEC in 1975?
True and most at the last election said they would work towards leaving the EU, not delay or undermine the Government's negotiating position.
The Conservative party won the last election based almost entirely on Theresa May's "No-deal is better than a bad-deal" rhetoric. This also featured on page 36 of the otherwise atrocious 2017 Conservative Party Election Manifesto. It is the mandate of the current Government, they won an election on it and the Benn bill is therefore a democratic discgrace!
(Score: 5, Informative) by TheRaven on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:39PM (8 children)
One problem with that: they didn't win the last election. They had a (slim) majority before the election and then lost it afterwards. They were the largest minority and formed a government only because of a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP, after agreeing to find £1bn extra for the Northern Ireland budget. They no longer have even that: between the MPs that have quit their party and the MPs that they've kicked out, they don't have a majority even with the DUP.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:44PM (7 children)
Unless opposition parties vote for election motions or bring a vote of no confidence, the Government can claim the confidence of the house. Therein lies the problem with your problem and with the stupid Supreme Court ruling.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 25 2019, @10:28PM (6 children)
The opposition don't have to do any of those things, all they need to do is to continue to give the PM the rope he needs to hang himself.
And they know it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @11:12PM (5 children)
Via Britain Elects [twitter.com]
(Score: 1, Redundant) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 25 2019, @11:22PM (2 children)
What do any of those numbers have to do with anything?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @11:30PM (1 child)
The public are not fooled by Parliamentary games and neither will they be convinced by this Supreme Court "ruling" when constitutional experts are done rubbishing it.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday September 26 2019, @02:32AM
That is very funny.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26 2019, @03:16AM
Are any of these polls binding?
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @01:36PM
This and other polls have been summarised in a timeline at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#National_poll_results [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:14PM (1 child)
Unfortunately we have to work with what people believe.
Yes, you are right. Personally I blame the voters for not ejecting all the buffoons from parliament. Don't know if they should be allowed to vote on Brexit.
So, what's next? The bookies say there will be an election some time next month. What does the smart money say?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by quietus on Wednesday September 25 2019, @07:47PM
That it doesn't matter whether the UK will have an election, or not; nor who becomes the next PM, or not. Brexit isn't really about the EU: it's about the UK's internal frictions and fractions. Leaving, or staying in, the EU will not resolve those.
(Score: 4, Troll) by choose another one on Wednesday September 25 2019, @05:03PM (1 child)
Legally non-binding, but politically binding - officially, in writing, to every household in the country "the government will implement what you decide".
Political actually overrides legal - political creates the law.
Secondly, parliament enacted the withdrawal act, which makes it legally binding, and it did so on the basis of "deal or no-deal" as the outcome, because that was how the article 50 process was understood by both the UK and the EU at the time.
Thirdly, we had an election in which over 80% voted for parties with manifesto commitments to implement the referendum decision (politically binding again).
Again, an artefact of the article 50 process as understood at the time, and EU procedure - only after making an irreversible decision to leave could any negotiations on a deal (or no deal) take place.
Even though revocation is now allowed I believe the ECJ ruled that it cannot be (ab)used to see what kind of deal you can get.
Further, the party currently in power (just), and the largest party in the commons, was elected on a manifesto including "no deal is better than a bad deal" and repeated commitments to post-Brexit free trade agreements (which a customs union, or never-ending backstop) would rule out.
There is a democratic mandate for Brexit, both referendum and parlimentary.
There is a democratic mandate for leaving "deal or no deal" - because that was what leave was understood to mean when the vote was taken
There is a democratic mandate for "no deal is better than a bad deal" - and there is currently no good deal (as defined in the same manifesto) on the table
There is _no_ democratic mandate for further delay and kicking the can down the road again - and you wouldn't get one, ComRes poll yesterday showed 60% supporting "just get on with it".
I'm not - the polling was wrong - in favour of Remain - before the referendum, and shows less support for Remain now than it did then.
Regardless, none of our idiot politicians would be (famous last words) so terminally idiotic as to go back with the same question now.
We might well get a new referendum that doesn't include all the options leaving out the ones the establishment doesn't want) because the voters can't be trusted to vote right - but then you can vote the same or different because it isn't the same question.
Further, you can't even really ask the same question again, because the question "should we stay or leave" is different to "should we stay or leave having voted to leave and not done it yet" - there are a lot of people who voted remain before who would vote leave now simply because we, collectively, voted to leave, so that is what we should do. We used to call that sort of person a Democrat, but probably best not to now given the Liberal Democrats current stance - they did used to be democrats though, see e.g. Paddy Ashdown: "when democracy speaks we obey" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Bv_1z2lFlw [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @10:26PM
Be they the Brexit propaganda, or your present wall of text.
Like for what "polling shows", the thing is transparent as vacuum: if the Brexiteers so sure of popular support, why the hilarious bitter fight of who out-crooks who, instead of another, decisive referendum? It is useless and stupid to listen to what politicians say; to learn anything, you need look at what they do.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 26 2019, @08:45AM
*However*, and this is the kicker, it was sold to the population as if it would be binding, that was explicit in the rhetoric.
*Morally*, that should make it binding. However, it was also abysmally framed, such that actually take one branch of the fork leads to a choice between equally unacceptable final destinations, none of which were known about at the time of the referendum.
For reference, I find a "laws trump morals" for cases like this a repulsive argument that indicates only that laws need to change.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:54PM (8 children)
52% of ~70% of the UK voted for Brexit, that's 37% of the people. Not exactly a resounding majority to base something as important as leaving the EU.
Nope. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring the Parliament to act on the results of the referendum. How about we have another referendum to see if people are still as sure they want out of the EU, now they begin to realize how it is going to screw them over?
Great, so run out the clock and end up with a no-deal Brexit. Apart from the boneheaded stupidity of virtually no logistical planning on a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland having been done, where would you like the mail bombs delivered once the troubles start up again?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @05:07PM (7 children)
52% of ~70% of the UK voted for Brexit, that's 37% of the people.
When it comes to voting, silence is consent. If you want to be heard, you have to speak.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:26PM (2 children)
That's true for North Korean elections too, I suppose.
When I was in college in the 80's, a group of people were forming a gay/lesbian group (you see, back in the day we didn't have all those other extra letters to figure out) and there were some who didn't feel that the group should be entitled to a share of the student fees as all other official college groups got. It being a small college, some people were uncomfortable with this whole idea. The woman organizing the group had the brilliant idea to declare "blue jeans support days" where she declared that on a particular day if you wear blue jeans then you support them. It was very amusing to see so many insecure people wearing dress slacks and dresses on that day. I personally wore jeans because that was pretty much my entire wardrobe, and I really didn't give two shits about the whole issue. So my silence was consent?
If you come out with what I think is a stupid or half-baked idea, wrap it up in a referendum that doesn't legally mean anything, you're telling me that if I don't feel bothered to vote against it that really means I'm in favor of it? Was it incumbent upon me back then to have to bother to dress one way or another because I was somehow required to take a side on an issue that I had, essentially, no voice in the outcome?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:51PM
Whether you vote or not, you will be counted. Yes, you may have to go out and vote "NO" if you want to prevent a disaster.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:54PM
Addendum:
I would prefer the "NO" vote be the default, so that a non-vote would a real vote against all candidates on the ballot. That would make things a bit more honest.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:00AM (1 child)
I wasn't allowed to vote even though, as a citizen, I can vote for a MP. Likewise for a lot of other people.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:14AM
Yes, and they (you) either accept it, or resist. Do you know of another choice?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday October 01 2019, @05:29PM (1 child)
Consent of a weak sort, perhaps. But that does not mean "vote with the majority", exactly. It could also mean "neither of those answers really matches my position"; i.e. if a particular Brexit solution like a no-deal is what is desired, and if that cannot be achieved then do not Brexit at all.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 01 2019, @05:52PM
Yes, to me a non-vote should be counted as a "no consent" vote. The argument for abstinence is a strong one, saying that voting is the positive act of consent, because you had to get up and do it. A "none of the above" should definitely be on the ballot. The people do have a right to abolish the government, an obligation when it becomes criminal.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday September 25 2019, @07:32PM (7 children)
"Not doing what you want them to do" does not equal "incompetent".
The people voted for "Brexit" without the slightest clue what that was really going to mean. Not because of incompetence by the current parliament, but because of the incompetence of David Cameron, who made a giant mistake in calling for a referendum in the first place. Why do I say it was a mistake? Because one side of the debate had to define what it was they were offering (namely, the status quo), while the other side could make whatever promises they wanted about what Brexit would ultimately mean without having to make it clear how they were going to get from here to there.
And now what the Brexiters are up against is this: What they promised the UK public was not anything remotely like something they could actually make happen. The EU holds basically all the cards in negotiations, and without leverage both Theresa May and Boris Johnson sound an awful lot like an 8-year-old threatening to run away from home and never come back. The main reason parliament, even with May and Johnson's Conservative Party holding a majority, has rejected both no-deal and May's deal is that neither of those are anything like what Brexiters said they'd be getting.
The pro-Brexit folks have 3 realistic options at this juncture:
1. Admit they were wrong about what Brexit would mean, and live with remaining.
2. Kick the can down the road by delaying the deadline.
3. Somehow browbeat the backbenchers into accepting May's deal and pretend that it's identical to what they wanted all along even though it isn't.
So far Boris Johnson has rejected option 1 and 2, and is failing at option 3 just like Theresa May did. I don't get the impression brinksmanship will get Johnson any closer to a deal, and he also can't no-deal Brexit because Parliament has already made that illegal.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26 2019, @12:11AM (5 children)
4. Take a no-deal Brexit.
5. Take whatever deal the EU is offering (be it May's deal or whatever).
6. Other sneaky things (e.g. Johnson asking for an extension, but in some way that causes the EU to reject it, such as bribing a small country to veto it).
7. Currently-unimaginable things. (No idea, but for example, a civil war, or cutting Northern Ireland out of the UK, or other "what?!" options... e.g. how did a random note tacked to a random church result in the trans-continental Protestant Reformation?)
The problem is the anti-Brexit don't like #4 so are blocking it. Johnson's suspension of Parliament was basically trying to prevent the anti-Brexit people from blocking #4.
Speaking for myself, I think Brexit is a terrible idea... but let's not beg the question and assume your 3 options are the only 3 ones available.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday September 26 2019, @12:28AM (3 children)
No-deal is already illegal per an act of Parliament, so Boris Johnson trying to do it would be identical to starting a civil war.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26 2019, @12:54AM (1 child)
Parliament voted to trigger A50 and no-deal remains the legal default.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:27AM
Situations like this call for Puritans to take over. Britain needs a new Oliver Cromwell [wikipedia.org], someone to form a New Model Army [wikipedia.org] and put parliament in its place and tell the queen to go stuff it. The last thing England needs is another leader like Ethelred the Unready [wikipedia.org], or Boris Johnson [wikipedia.org].
Just my opinion, from a rather long historical perspective. Bloody Frisians!
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @01:42PM
Not quite. No-deal is illegal, unless:
- Parliament says (by passing a motion) that it's happy to leave without a withdrawal agreement
- Or the EU do not agree to the UK's request for an extension
If either of those happens, then failing a sudden, shock ratification of a Withdrawal Agreement in Westminster, the default outcome in law is still to leave at the end of October with no deal.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by aristarchus on Friday September 27 2019, @10:42AM
Let's knot, that would be a far gone conclusion. The crutch of the matter was that from the gecko, Brexit was just the dream of dissolutioned people who did not want to bind Poles in a fair to midland country.
So, one more tyme! https://begthequestion.info/ [begthequestion.info]
https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/begs-the-question [quickanddirtytips.com]
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2039:_Begging_the_Question [explainxkcd.com]
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petitio_Principii [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @05:19AM
C'mon, it was exceptionally clear just what that meant. Invoke article 50.
Much clearer than what it meant when you voted to acceded to the EEU, an econonic/free trade bit, the last time you voted for any of this.
"because of the incompetence of David Cameron, who made a giant mistake in calling for a referendum in the first place. Why do I say it was a mistake? Because one side of the debate had to define what it was they were offering (namely, the status quo), while the other side could make whatever promises they wanted about what Brexit would ultimately mean without having to make it clear how they were going to get from here to there."
ok.
In his defense, he only called the vote because his professional advisors told him to do it.
Horrible bit of jelly he was, really. Never did anything but what his advisors told him to do. Even when they were visibly cringing, dear souls.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Thursday September 26 2019, @03:51PM
Where do you draw the line on that? If the people voted to annex Russia, build a base on Jupiter, or get a handout of 1 trillion pounds - is Parliament obligated to give it to them? Subsequently, what happens if someone runs for parliament on a platform of "No I won't do those things" but they get voted in? Is that person obligated to do it as well?
The reality is that the people voted for this having no idea what they were asking. Many of them woke up the next morning, saw the papers, and went "oh no, I didn't *really* want it." And some of those people keep voting in politicians whose platform is to not do brexit. So there is hardly a consensus on the issue at all. Nevermind the fact that none of the politicians can figure out how to make it actually happen without crippling the country.
There are 2 reasons Brexit has not been canceled: One is that too many people are not willing to admit they made a mistake by voting for it, and two is that politicians are using it as a wedge issue to gain power. The only logical path is to apologize to the EU, beg forgiveness, and abort.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:51PM (23 children)
Getting the queen involved is of course a call-back to those times, and of course a complete farse - if BoJo done wrong, then the queen done wrong too, and she and her family business should be shut down, so that she/they can't do any more damage.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:55PM (22 children)
You don't have to sell me on republicanism. Monarchs are a stupid concept, and even constitutionally limited, should not exist anywhere in the world.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:00PM (21 children)
Every form of government is a stupid concept though. Just not as stupid as the alternative.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:51PM (20 children)
*sigh* All the same old soundbites... What "alternative" are you thinking of?
We don't "govern". We just let shit happen, then try to patch it up. When we govern, shit actually gets done.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:31PM (17 children)
Anarchy (in the common meaning of the word here, not the philosophical) means everyone scratching against everyone else, and it means doom for an animal like us. We rely on coöperation to survive.
So we form groups and we abide by rules so that we can coöperate and survive and prosper. But in doing so, we open ourselves to the opposite danger - authoritarianism. Tyranny. Corruption.
And the specific form of the state doesn't seem to matter much. A parliament can become authoritarian much like a king can.
It may be that how they rule is more important than how they came to rule, in the end.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:58PM (16 children)
The majority as tyrant has always been a thing. Anarchy is simply the absence of authority. Rules without rulers. Voluntary cooperation is actually key in an anarchistic system.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday September 26 2019, @12:39AM (2 children)
Yeah, you go for voluntary cooperation. While you're doing that, me and my buddies with AR-15s and this tank we took from the nearby former Army base are taking everything you own, and if you don't like that well tough. And if for some reason it's not me, it's the former business CEO offering lots of shinies for their armed guys, the religious fanatic cult that has been waiting for just this moment to take over, or the drug runners who have lots of experience in this kind of environment.
That's the problem with anarchy: It turns into feudalism or civil war very very quickly. In the example most anarchists like to point to for how anarchy could actually work in practice during the Spanish Civil War, the fascists took them over in a matter of a few years.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 26 2019, @02:14AM
Anarchism precludes the desire to rule. This is why it cannot exist, probably anywhere in this universe. But becoming human requires work towards that goal anyway, to leave people alone (if they ask) and show respect, otherwise they are just like any other animal.
In reality, those super rich at the very top, they do live in anarchy of sorts. They are above all legal jurisdiction and do what they please. There's nobody to stop their wars, pillaging, and other crimes. But we do live under their rule.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:12AM
Actually the anarchists were doing pretty good until the Stalinist's showed up, divided the left between the authoritarians and the anarchists and then the fascists won. At least that's my understanding of reading Orwell.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @04:09AM (12 children)
No sir, I am afraid you are incorrect. For the majority of human prehistory and history, its not been a thing at all.
"Anarchy is simply the absence of authority."
Etymologically, perhaps.
"Rules without rulers."
And also without any explicit justification?
"/Voluntary/ cooperation is actually key in an anarchistic system."
That's philosophic anarchism. The interpretation I explicitly said I was NOT invoking.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 26 2019, @04:57AM (11 children)
No sir, I am afraid you are incorrect. For the majority of human prehistory and history, its not been a thing at all.
Yes, it has. A majority with a big advantage is oppressive by nature. At a more personal level it's called "peer pressure". The majority understands its power and exploits it to its fullest. It's just another tribe, with all the same issues, demands for conformity, etc. It is and always has been very tyrannical. Democracy is only one level above your regular old tyranny according to that Greek guy. Not hard to see when you count the votes.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @05:14AM (10 children)
For the vast majority of human history, if you did not support band leader $x, then you immediately ceased to be a relevant person.
Good luck surviving the season and meeting back up at the tribal love shack.
Of course, if you manage to do so, people will write songs about you and it's likely many bands will compete to attract you for the next season.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 26 2019, @05:44AM (9 children)
The majority is defined as the majority of the relevant persons.
For the vast majority of human history, if you did not support band leader $x, then you immediately ceased to be a relevant person.
Yes, tyranny
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @05:48AM (3 children)
"Support yourself or do what I say" is a long, long ways from "do what I say or I will kill you."
Seriously?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 26 2019, @05:55AM (2 children)
Meaningless right wing talking point, not even worth mentioning any further. And watching people starve while throwing away food is just plain savagery, piled on top the tyranny.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:22AM (1 child)
Well I guess that's where we part company.
"And watching people starve while throwing away food is just plain savagery, piled on top the tyranny."
No disagreement there. None whatsoever.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:32AM
Don't take it personally. I just expected better.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @05:54AM (4 children)
The thing is, humans don't have control over most of this stuff.
People demanding protection from things no human could protect them from, that's one side.
People offering protection they could not possibly provide, a second.
But another level of insanity is required from those who were happy to 'pay their taxes' as well; you see?
It's Geiger all the way down when you find the truly sick thoughts. Still, you must not flinch.
Look the badthink in it's face and master it.
Or die.
Sometimes I wish I could die.
Can you help me?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:01AM (3 children)
Sometimes I wish I could die.
Can you help me?
Yes. Stop it! [youtube.com]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:19AM (2 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:23AM (1 child)
Patience. You are advancing. You have my personal guarantee. In the meantime, go to the beach
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:31AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 25 2019, @08:52PM (1 child)
There is only one alternative to government, anarchy. And anarchy is worse. I know you want to argue pointlessly about what form of shitty is the best form of shitty but I'm just not interested in playing today.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 26 2019, @02:19AM
I know you want to argue pointlessly about what form of shitty is the best form of shitty
No, don't care. Shitty is shitty. The degree of tolerance is a cultural thing. Just keep your dog out of the azaleas.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday September 25 2019, @10:24PM (1 child)
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @11:21PM
There are written constitutional laws and (documented) convention. The proroguing was not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court decided it had the ability to create new constitutional law. [spectator.co.uk]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:24PM (8 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation
The unusual thing isn't that they were sent to recess, it's that they had sat so long before it happened! The usual pattern is to recess every year. The parliament in question had been sitting well over 2 years, and while they had announced an intention to sit for two years, the two years ended in June and still they continued to sit.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 25 2019, @08:54PM
I did not know this. Cheers.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26 2019, @12:17AM (5 children)
That may be unusual, but not that big a deal.
The real unusual, and (more importantly) suspicious, thing was how long they were going into recess. A literally unprecedented long recess (I think almost 2x as long as the next longest one)? Right before a major nation-defining deadline?
You can argue plausible deniability, no legal proof, and all the fig-leafs you want. However, "when a Russian defector ends up poisoned with an exotic neurotoxin," do you really think it was not Russia who did it? Likewise, do you really think that this was anything other than an intentional attempt of Johnson to try to force-through a no-deal Brexit?
In my mind, the most unusual thing was that the court actually had the nerve to call it out and stop it. I'm more used to the mental gymnastics the recent US Supreme Court uses to justify why government actions (e.g. the Affordable Care Act, and the ban on specific Muslim-majority country travelers) is in fact acceptable despite the fact they are obviously unprecedented and of dubious constitutionality.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @04:22AM (4 children)
Perhaps.
"The real unusual, and (more importantly) suspicious, thing was how long they were going into recess. A literally unprecedented long recess (I think almost 2x as long as the next longest one)? Right before a major nation-defining deadline?"
They don't seem that out of line with each other. I'll defer to wikipedia, while simultaneously admitting I know it's a less than reliable source.
(Are there any reliable sources for anything, in 2019?)
At any rate.
"Parliament was due to have a three-week recess for party conference season,[18] and Johnson's prorogation would add around four days to the parliamentary break. The 2017–19 parliamentary session is the longest since the English Civil War,[19][20] while the prorogation in 2019 at Johnson's request is to be the longest prorogation since 1930.[21]"
Longest session since the 1600s when we were fighting roundheads and cavaliers. Longest prorogation since 1930. Which is more out of line?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:33AM (3 children)
A recess is different then ending a session. Summer recess vs end of session. While true that Parliamentry sessions usually only last a year, they're usually not prorogued out of the blue for political reasons. We went through one here in Canada, where Harper, facing a non-confidence vote the next day, prorogued Parliament out of the blue and it was unclear if Constitutional (we have a mixture of written and unwritten), but he did it and it never went to the Supreme Court.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @01:49PM (2 children)
In that case the Governor General took legal advice, consulted various people, and attached conditions to the granting of the prorogation (to reconvene soon, and to put forward a budget as soon as they returned). In the UK system, the Queen is, by convention, not allowed to do anything other than blindly accept the advice that is given to her. So (in the US parlance) there was little in the way of "checks and balances" on the Prime Minister's decision to go for a longer-than-usual prorogation at a politically critical moment.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday September 26 2019, @03:02PM (1 child)
Interesting, I didn't know the Governor-General did that and thought it was more similar to the Queen blindly rubber stamping.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday September 27 2019, @09:15AM
There were some people complaining that it should have been a blind rubber-stamping exercise by the Governor General, typically those who's political objectives would be best served by a granting of the prorogation. As an appointed official she arguably had more leeway to get involved, more so than a monarch who is in that role by accident of birth.
Part of the unspoken "deal" of having a monarchy and non-political head of state is that the Queen is never allowed to do anything political. That can be difficult to do when your Prime Minister walks in and gives you a political hot potato.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @01:56PM
Recess and Prorogation are different things in the Westminster system.
A Recess is when one house (Commons or Lords) decides not to sit for a period of time. The other house can continue to meet (and process legislation, etc.), questions can be put to ministers, and committee meetings can go ahead as normal.
A Prorogation, on the other hand, stops both houses from sitting, shuts down all the committees, and also wipes clean the statute list: any bills that were not yet law are abandoned (with a few exceptions) and have to be resubmitted when the next Parliamentary session starts. Parliament has no direct say in the timing or length of a prorogation, it is done by order of the Queen on the advice of he Prime Minister.