Boris may leave Wakefield now but he will return when it has fallen to the Tories after the next general election
A leave voting northern consituency and a Lab majority of only 2,000 with the MP being one the most prominant faces telling leave voters to go to hell - very likely.
Ok, it's approaching midnight on Oct 19, Boris is still PM but he has not requested the extension as the Benn bill requires.
What _exactly_ happens?
He can be arrested for contempt of Parliament.
That would be an arrest of the 5 members or execution of Charles 1st moment and could well really tip us finally into civil war for the first time in almost 400 years, at least metaphorically even if not literally.
I suspect in such circumstances Boris would also ask the Queen to prorogue Parliament until it agreed to a GE and I suspect she would agree
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
No he will not, what are they going to do? Arrest Boris for refusing to ask for an extension most voters don't want. If they do watch the Tory voteshare rise yet further as we enter the final stages of all out civil war of the executive and the majority of voters against the legislature
Steady on. Your boys are, at best, at 35% in the polls you so love. Even adding on the BXP you are not getting to a “majority of voters”. Doubtless you’ll pull out some voodoo poll about an extension but being opposed to an extension does not equate to support for Boris Johnson remaining as PM
Ok, it's approaching midnight on Oct 19, Boris is still PM but he has not requested the extension as the Benn bill requires.
What _exactly_ happens?
He can be arrested for contempt of Parliament.
That would be an arrest of the 5 members or execution of Charles 1st moment and could well really tip us finally into civil war for the first time in almost 400 years, at least metaphorically even if not literally
Metaphorically and literally would be rather different things, though, wouldn't they.
Ok, it's approaching midnight on Oct 19, Boris is still PM but he has not requested the extension as the Benn bill requires.
What _exactly_ happens?
He can be arrested for contempt of Parliament.
That would be an arrest of the 5 members or execution of Charles 1st moment and could well really tip us finally into civil war for the first time in almost 400 years, at least metaphorically even if not literally.
I suspect in such circumstances Boris would also ask the Queen to prorogue Parliament until it agreed to a GE and I suspect she would agree
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
No he will not, what are they going to do? Arrest Boris for refusing to ask for an extension most voters don't want. If they do watch the Tory voteshare rise yet further as we enter the final stages of all out civil war of the executive against the legislature
Would you really want to set a precedent that the PM is above the law?
Would you really want to set a precedent that the legislature can defy the will of the people without consequence?
... If they do watch the Tory voteshare rise yet further as we enter the final stages of all out civil war of the executive and the majority of voters against the legislature
That is of no concern to the Police. If the PM commits a criminal act, the police are obliged to enforce the law and arrest.
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
It might be immoral but technically in a democracy with an unwritten constitution as we have whatever a majority of the voters want will ultimately become the law yes
So - by your standard, the nazis were not doing anything wrong?
FFS! Can you not see that you are getting away past the standards of normal behaviour?
No, I did not say that and it is an outrageous distortion of what I said.
What I said was if a majority of voters vote for something or for a political party to become the government to implement it it will become the law, no matter how immoral, unless a written constitution blocks it and is not repealed or amended to facilitate it.
What the Nazis did was obviously immoral and evil but as they were the governing party in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s it was not illegal under German law
Read a book on jurisprudence - or maybe just skip to the chapter on Natural Law.
Natural law is based on morality, that does not mean it always constitutes actual law
Really? So you feel the Nuremberg Trials were not legitimate? That the American Colonists had no right to revolt? That the Tienamen Square protestors had it coming?
Under the laws of the lands at the time those were illegal acts yes but of course certainly in the latter 2 cases it was authoritarian regimes defying the people much as the current Parliament is defying the will of the people as expressed in 2016
The point is your understanding of “the law of the land” is very limited. The law of the land goes beyond what is passed in a legislature. Thats why I suggest you read a book on jurisprudence.
Short version - you don’t quite understand where law comes from.
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
No he will not, what are they going to do? Arrest Boris for refusing to ask for an extension most voters don't want. If they do watch the Tory voteshare rise yet further as we enter the final stages of all out civil war of the executive against the legislature
Would you really want to set a precedent that the PM is above the law?
Would you really want to set a precedent that the legislature can defy the will of the people without consequence?
This legislature was elected after the referendum you muppet.
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
No he will not, what are they going to do? Arrest Boris for refusing to ask for an extension most voters don't want. If they do watch the Tory voteshare rise yet further as we enter the final stages of all out civil war of the executive and the majority of voters against the legislature
Yes. They will arrest the Prime Minister for breaking the law.
The Prime Minister CANNOT break the law. The government CANNOT break the law.
What kind of a fucking CONSERVATIVE are you?
I take it that you are fine for the precedent this sets to be followed up by Corbyn. Or Farage. Or some future extreme populist. The rule of law is a rather basic fundamental principle in the United Kingdom. That you want to toss it aside for narrow political gain demonstrates what an utter utter tosser you are.
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
@AlastairMeeks@Cyclefree are you able to educate us on this? What are the possible consequences legally?
It doesn't create a crime. Failure to comply with it would be judicially reviewable by the courts, and non compliance with their orders would be contempt of court.
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
@AlastairMeeks@Cyclefree are you able to educate us on this? What are the possible consequences legally?
It doesn't create a crime. Failure to comply with it would be judicially reviewable by the courts, and non compliance with their orders would be contempt of court.
@HYUFD if there was a GE and a party was elected with 50% of the vote with a policy to strip all the residents of Essex of their property, I assume you wouldn’t protest?
I’m feeling personally attacked by this line of questioning.
I
‘Kn’ll, if this is anywhere near serious I’m off to borrow a shotgun. And a couple of dozen cartridges!
I think it's a great idea. A Prime Minister. Unencumbered by the rule of law. Unencumbered by parliament. Able to do whatever the hell he likes to whomever he likes, cheered on by populist newspapers.
Watch them cheer as he strings the Jews up. It's the WILL OF THE PEOPLE mate. Doesn't matter if it's illegal, the people who passed the law are traitors anyway, look, they're on the next lamp post.
That was a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of whatever the fuck HYUFD thinks is a Conservative Party
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
No he will not, what are they going to do? Arrest Boris for refusing to ask for an extension most voters don't want. If they do watch the Tory voteshare rise yet further as we enter the final stages of all out civil war of the executive against the legislature
Would you really want to set a precedent that the PM is above the law?
Would you really want to set a precedent that the legislature can defy the will of the people without consequence?
As you yourself have predicted, their defiance will have a consequence - at an election. So your question is nonsensical given you believe so strongly in that consequence occuring.
Ok, it's approaching midnight on Oct 19, Boris is still PM but he has not requested the extension as the Benn bill requires.
What _exactly_ happens?
He can be arrested for contempt of Parliament.
I think it would be contempt of court because it would arise out of existing legislation rather than out of impeding the legislature in creating new legislation.
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
@AlastairMeeks@Cyclefree are you able to educate us on this? What are the possible consequences legally?
It doesn't create a crime. Failure to comply with it would be judicially reviewable by the courts, and non compliance with their orders would be contempt of court.
And if judged to be in contempt, what happens next? A fine? A telling off? Plod dispatched to feel your collar?
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
@AlastairMeeks@Cyclefree are you able to educate us on this? What are the possible consequences legally?
It doesn't create a crime. Failure to comply with it would be judicially reviewable by the courts, and non compliance with their orders would be contempt of court.
In the same way as any other law? If I rob your house in broad daylight surrounded by eight eyewitnesses, I still have to be found guilty of robbery by a court of law before I am deemed to be a criminal.
I think it's a great idea. A Prime Minister. Unencumbered by the rule of law. Unencumbered by parliament. Able to do whatever the hell he likes to whomever he likes, cheered on by populist newspapers.
Watch them cheer as he strings the Jews up. It's the WILL OF THE PEOPLE mate. Doesn't matter if it's illegal, the people who passed the law are traitors anyway, look, they're on the next lamp post.
That was a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of whatever the fuck HYUFD thinks is a Conservative Party
It’s okay, @HYUFD has reassured me that as I am led to the gallows for being a diehard remainer thwarting the will of the people, I can vote the government that led me there out at the next election
Ok, it's approaching midnight on Oct 19, Boris is still PM but he has not requested the extension as the Benn bill requires.
What _exactly_ happens?
He can be arrested for contempt of Parliament.
That would be an arrest of the 5 members or execution of Charles 1st moment and could well really tip us finally into civil war for the first time in almost 400 years, at least metaphorically even if not literally.
I suspect in such circumstances Boris would also ask the Queen to prorogue Parliament until it agreed to a GE and I suspect she would agree
how can it agree to an election if prorogued?
If the leaders of the opposition agree to vote for an election it will be recalled but only if they agree
Ok, it's approaching midnight on Oct 19, Boris is still PM but he has not requested the extension as the Benn bill requires.
What _exactly_ happens?
He can be arrested for contempt of Parliament.
That would be an arrest of the 5 members or execution of Charles 1st moment and could well really tip us finally into civil war for the first time in almost 400 years, at least metaphorically even if not literally.
I suspect in such circumstances Boris would also ask the Queen to prorogue Parliament until it agreed to a GE and I suspect she would agree
how can it agree to an election if prorogued?
If the leaders of the opposition agree to vote for an election it will be recalled but only if they agree
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
@AlastairMeeks@Cyclefree are you able to educate us on this? What are the possible consequences legally?
It doesn't create a crime. Failure to comply with it would be judicially reviewable by the courts, and non compliance with their orders would be contempt of court.
And if judged to be in contempt, what happens next? A fine? A telling off? Plod dispatched to feel your collar?
Generally a few months in Pentonville if sufficiently serious
Ok, it's approaching midnight on Oct 19, Boris is still PM but he has not requested the extension as the Benn bill requires.
What _exactly_ happens?
He can be arrested for contempt of Parliament.
That would be an arrest of the 5 members or execution of Charles 1st moment and could well really tip us finally into civil war for the first time in almost 400 years, at least metaphorically even if not literally.
I suspect in such circumstances Boris would also ask the Queen to prorogue Parliament until it agreed to a GE and I suspect she would agree
how can it agree to an election if prorogued?
If the leaders of the opposition agree to vote for an election it will be recalled but only if they agree
But I thought Parliament was being prorogued out of necessity for a new domestic program?
... If they do watch the Tory voteshare rise yet further as we enter the final stages of all out civil war of the executive and the majority of voters against the legislature
That is of no concern to the Police. If the PM commits a criminal act, the police are obliged to enforce the law and arrest.
No one is above the law.
If the police arrest the PM for implementing the will of the people to Leave the EU that gives full rein to civil disobedience and riots as the police will have taken the side of diehard Remainers
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
It might be immoral but technically in a democracy with an unwritten constitution as we have whatever a majority of the voters want will ultimately become the law yes
So - by your standard, the nazis were not doing anything wrong?
FFS! Can you not see that you are getting away past the standards of normal behaviour?
No, I did not say that and it is an outrageous distortion of what I said.
What I said was if a majority of voters vote for something or for a political party to become the government to implement it it will become the law, no matter how immoral, unless a written constitution blocks it and is not repealed or amended to facilitate it.
What the Nazis did was obviously immoral and evil but as they were the governing party in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s it was not illegal under German law
Read a book on jurisprudence - or maybe just skip to the chapter on Natural Law.
Natural law is based on morality, that does not mean it always constitutes actual law
Really? So you feel the Nuremberg Trials were not legitimate? That the American Colonists had no right to revolt? That the Tienamen Square protestors had it coming?
Under the laws of the lands at the time those were illegal acts yes but of course certainly in the latter 2 cases it was authoritarian regimes defying the people much as the current Parliament is defying the will of the people as expressed in 2016
The point is your understanding of “the law of the land” is very limited. The law of the land goes beyond what is passed in a legislature. Thats why I suggest you read a book on jurisprudence.
Short version - you don’t quite understand where law comes from.
Law comes from lots of sources, that does not change what the law is
... If they do watch the Tory voteshare rise yet further as we enter the final stages of all out civil war of the executive and the majority of voters against the legislature
That is of no concern to the Police. If the PM commits a criminal act, the police are obliged to enforce the law and arrest.
No one is above the law.
If the police arrest the PM for implementing the will of the people to Leave the EU that gives full rein to civil disobedience and riots as the police will have taken the side of diehard Remainers
Contempt of Parliament is an offence that the House of Commons itself can hear and a Minister refusing point blank to perform a duty legally required of him by Act of Parliament that interfered with the legislation-mandated role of the Commons would probably qualify.
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
No he will not, what are they going to do? Arrest Boris for refusing to ask for an extension most voters don't want. If they do watch the Tory voteshare rise yet further as we enter the final stages of all out civil war of the executive against the legislature
Would you really want to set a precedent that the PM is above the law?
Would you really want to set a precedent that the legislature can defy the will of the people without consequence?
This legislature was elected after the referendum you muppet.
With both Labour and Tory manifestos committing to deliver Brexit
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
No he will not, what are they legislature
Yes. They will arrest the Prime Minister for breaking the law.
The Prime Minister CANNOT break the law. The government CANNOT break the law.
What kind of a fucking CONSERVATIVE are you?
I take it that you are fine for the precedent this sets to be followed up by Corbyn. Or Farage. Or some future extreme populist. The rule of law is a rather basic fundamental principle in the United Kingdom. That you want to toss it aside for narrow political gain demonstrates what an utter utter tosser you are.
This is no law, this is a coup by diehard Remainers to overturn the biggest democratic vote in British history and if they want to start a civil war by arresting the PM for respecting that democratic vote that is what they will get
Contempt of Parliament is an offence that the House of Commons itself can hear and a Minister refusing point blank to perform a duty legally required of him by Act of Parliament that interfered with the legislation-mandated role of the Commons would probably qualify.
Thanks Alastair. What would happen? Is it something the HOC deals with themselves or would the civil courts be involved?
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
No he will not, what are they going to do? Arrest Boris for refusing to ask for an extension most voters don't want. If they do watch the Tory voteshare rise yet further as we enter the final stages of all out civil war of the executive against the legislature
Would you really want to set a precedent that the PM is above the law?
Would you really want to set a precedent that the legislature can defy the will of the people without consequence?
This legislature was elected after the referendum you muppet.
With both Labour and Tory manifestos committing to deliver Brexit
Contempt of Parliament is an offence that the House of Commons itself can hear and a Minister refusing point blank to perform a duty legally required of him by Act of Parliament that interfered with the legislation-mandated role of the Commons would probably qualify.
It's all a bit House of Cards esque. I know Boris needs to demonstrate his Brexit credentials to win over BXP, and fight an extension tooth and nail as part of that, but not complying with an Act of Parliament? That seems like such a major leap.
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
No he will not, what are they legislature
Yes. They will arrest the Prime Minister for breaking the law.
The Prime Minister CANNOT break the law. The government CANNOT break the law. u are.
This is no law, this is a coup by diehard Remainers to overturn the biggest democratic vote in British history and if they want to start a civil war by arresting the PM for respecting that democratic vote that is what they will get
It will become law this weekend when it receives Royal Assent.
I think logic suggests that Corbyn will become PM after Oct 19. If Alexander Johnson will not relay the A50 extension request to the EU, the HoC will have to VoNC him. Also there will not be any time arguing who will be PM for a month. By this time or at this time, either through FTPA or without, the date of the next GE will be fixed. Corbyn will not be able to do anything dramatic as Labour will be a minority party themselves.
Contempt of Parliament is an offence that the House of Commons itself can hear and a Minister refusing point blank to perform a duty legally required of him by Act of Parliament that interfered with the legislation-mandated role of the Commons would probably qualify.
Thanks Alastair. What would happen? Is it something the HOC deals with themselves or would the civil courts be involved?
Parliament is a court and can take action itself. Indeed, Dominic Cummings was found guilty of that offence himself earlier this year.
This is no law, this is a coup by diehard Remainers to overturn the biggest democratic vote in British history and if they want to start a civil war by arresting the PM for respecting that democratic vote that is what they will get
The referendum was advisory. It had no legal force.
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
@AlastairMeeks@Cyclefree are you able to educate us on this? What are the possible consequences legally?
It doesn't create a crime. Failure to comply with it would be judicially reviewable by the courts, and non compliance with their orders would be contempt of court.
And if judged to be in contempt, what happens next? A fine? A telling off? Plod dispatched to feel your collar?
... If they do watch the Tory voteshare rise yet further as we enter the final stages of all out civil war of the executive and the majority of voters against the legislature
That is of no concern to the Police. If the PM commits a criminal act, the police are obliged to enforce the law and arrest.
No one is above the law.
If the police arrest the PM for implementing the will of the people to Leave the EU that gives full rein to civil disobedience and riots as the police will have taken the side of diehard Remainers
Contempt of Parliament is an offence that the House of Commons itself can hear and a Minister refusing point blank to perform a duty legally required of him by Act of Parliament that interfered with the legislation-mandated role of the Commons would probably qualify.
Am I right in thinking that if guilty he could be locked up in Big Ben? Interesting to know if the renovations have kept any cells in place or whether they assumed they were no longer required!
Have all tribal Tories gone quite so deranged as HYUFD appears to have? There really is no way back if they have.
Certainly the majority of Tories I know are determined that the Leave vote be respected no matter what the cost and are fully behind Boris in that aim as are the majority of voters in the latest polls.
Diehard Remainers do not realise the forces they might be about to unleash and Tories would be relatively mild compared to the Tommy Robinson led mob riots and mass Farage rallies of anger and fury if they try and arrest the PM for refusing to block Brexit without an election
Contempt of Parliament is an offence that the House of Commons itself can hear and a Minister refusing point blank to perform a duty legally required of him by Act of Parliament that interfered with the legislation-mandated role of the Commons would probably qualify.
Thanks Alastair. What would happen? Is it something the HOC deals with themselves or would the civil courts be involved?
Parliament is a court and can take action itself. Indeed, Dominic Cummings was found guilty of that offence himself earlier this year.
He doesn't seem to have received much in the way of punishment. Certainly not anything that would cause Johnson to think more than twice about running the same risk.
Contempt of Parliament is an offence that the House of Commons itself can hear and a Minister refusing point blank to perform a duty legally required of him by Act of Parliament that interfered with the legislation-mandated role of the Commons would probably qualify.
Am I right in thinking that if guilty he could be locked up in Big Ben? Interesting to know if the renovations have kept any cells in place or whether they assumed they were no longer required!
Re: the current bonkers dispute over the PM defying the law...
1. It wouldn't work. The EU27 wouldn't countenance being seen to expel the UK based on an illegal act by the Prime Minister, and his behaviour would be challenged and defeated in the courts in both London and Strasbourg 2. In any subsequent GE, the flow of diehard Leave voters into the arms of the Tories might be enough, and in the right places, to compensate for the stampede of moderates away from them under such circumstances. But I doubt it 3. The Parliamentary Conservative Party does not consist primarily of total nutters. If the Prime Minister defies the law of the land, it will descend into chaos and probably disintegrate in any event
If Corbyn won't give Boris Johnson his October 15th election, and the Prime Minister wants to avoid compliance with the Benn legislation, his only realistic option is to resign and go into Opposition.
Ok, it's approaching midnight on Oct 19, Boris is still PM but he has not requested the extension as the Benn bill requires.
What _exactly_ happens?
He can be arrested for contempt of Parliament.
That would be an arrest of the 5 members or execution of Charles 1st moment and could well really tip us finally into civil war for the first time in almost 400 years, at least metaphorically even if not literally.
I suspect in such circumstances Boris would also ask the Queen to prorogue Parliament until it agreed to a GE and I suspect she would agree
how can it agree to an election if prorogued?
If the leaders of the opposition agree to vote for an election it will be recalled but only if they agree
Have all tribal Tories gone quite so deranged as HYUFD appears to have? There really is no way back if they have.
Certainly the majority of Tories are determined that the Leave vote be respected no matter what the cost and are fully behind Boris in that aim as are the majority of voters in the latest polls.
Diehard Remainers do not realise the forces they might be about to unleash and Tories would be relatively mild compared to the Tommy Robinson led mob riots and mass Farage rallies of anger and fury if they try and arrest the PM for refusing to block Brexit
More bollocks I’m afraid this is a conservative problem no one else’s stop trying to raise the masses up behind a load of self entitled tax dodging elite who have played this brilliantly to their financial benefit
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
No he will not, what are they going to do? Arrest Boris for refusing to ask for an extension most voters don't want. If they do watch the Tory voteshare rise yet further as we enter the final stages of all out civil war of the executive against the legislature
Would you really want to set a precedent that the PM is above the law?
Would you really want to set a precedent that the legislature can defy the will of the people without consequence?
As you yourself have predicted, their defiance will have a consequence - at an election. So your question is nonsensical given you believe so strongly in that consequence occuring.
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
No he will not, what are they legislature
Yes. They will arrest the Prime Minister for breaking the law.
The Prime Minister CANNOT break the law. The government CANNOT break the law. u are.
This is no law, this is a coup by diehard Remainers to overturn the biggest democratic vote in British history and if they want to start a civil war by arresting the PM for respecting that democratic vote that is what they will get
It will become law this weekend when it receives Royal Assent.
Quite. I totally get if people think it is a terrible excuse for a law, but there are plenty of laws that are awful no doubt.
This is no law, this is a coup by diehard Remainers to overturn the biggest democratic vote in British history and if they want to start a civil war by arresting the PM for respecting that democratic vote that is what they will get
"This is no law." It will be on Monday once Brenda signs it.
Have all tribal Tories gone quite so deranged as HYUFD appears to have? There really is no way back if they have.
Certainly the majority of Tories are determined that the Leave vote be respected no matter what the cost and are fully behind Boris in that aim as are the majority of voters in the latest polls.
Diehard Remainers do not realise the forces they might be about to unleash and Tories would be relatively mild compared to the Tommy Robinson led mob riots and mass Farage rallies of anger and fury if they try and arrest the PM for refusing to block Brexit
More bollocks I’m afraid this is a conservative problem no one else’s stop trying to raise the masses up behind a load of self entitled tax dodging elite who have played this brilliantly to their financial benefit
Spoken by a clueless liberal elitist with contempt for the working class and lower middle class majority who voted Leave, your day of reckoning may soon be at hand
Re: the current bonkers dispute over the PM defying the law...
1. It wouldn't work. The EU27 wouldn't countenance being seen to expel the UK based on an illegal act by the Prime Minister, and his behaviour would be challenged and defeated in the courts in both London and Strasbourg 2. In any subsequent GE, the flow of diehard Leave voters into the arms of the Tories might be enough, and in the right places, to compensate for the stampede of moderates away from them under such circumstances. But I doubt it 3. The Parliamentary Conservative Party does not consist primarily of total nutters. If the Prime Minister defies the law of the land, it will descend into chaos and probably disintegrate in any event
If Corbyn won't give Boris Johnson his October 15th election, and the Prime Minister wants to avoid compliance with the Benn legislation, his only realistic option is to resign and go into Opposition.
Thank you for injecting a note of reason into the discussions.
Re: the current bonkers dispute over the PM defying the law...
1. It wouldn't work. The EU27 wouldn't countenance being seen to expel the UK based on an illegal act by the Prime Minister, and his behaviour would be challenged and defeated in the courts in both London and Strasbourg 2. In any subsequent GE, the flow of diehard Leave voters into the arms of the Tories might be enough, and in the right places, to compensate for the stampede of moderates away from them under such circumstances. But I doubt it 3. The Parliamentary Conservative Party does not consist primarily of total nutters. If the Prime Minister defies the law of the land, it will descend into chaos and probably disintegrate in any event
If Corbyn won't give Boris Johnson his October 15th election, and the Prime Minister wants to avoid compliance with the Benn legislation, his only realistic option is to resign and go into Opposition.
Possibly and of course in opposition the Tory rating would surge but given Swinson would veto a Corbyn premiership and Corbyn would likely veto a Clarke and Harman premiership there is no alternative PM either it seems
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will havless he resigns.
No he wlegislature
Would you really want to set a precedent that the PM is above the law?
Would you really want to set a precedent that the legislature can defy the will of the people without consequence?
As you yourself have predicted, their defiance will have a consequence - at an election. So your question is nonsensical given you believe so strongly in that consequence occuring.
It won't as they are denying an election as well
But there will be an election at some point, even if it is in 3 years, and they will face a consequence. And the election will surely be sooner than that, since even though they've briefly chickened out, the opposition parties do want one relatively soon.
Re: the current bonkers dispute over the PM defying the law...
1. It wouldn't work. The EU27 wouldn't countenance being seen to expel the UK based on an illegal act by the Prime Minister, and his behaviour would be challenged and defeated in the courts in both London and Strasbourg 2. In any subsequent GE, the flow of diehard Leave voters into the arms of the Tories might be enough, and in the right places, to compensate for the stampede of moderates away from them under such circumstances. But I doubt it 3. The Parliamentary Conservative Party does not consist primarily of total nutters. If the Prime Minister defies the law of the land, it will descend into chaos and probably disintegrate in any event
If Corbyn won't give Boris Johnson his October 15th election, and the Prime Minister wants to avoid compliance with the Benn legislation, his only realistic option is to resign and go into Opposition.
I was with you all the way until your opening sentence of point 3.
Contempt of Parliament is an offence that the House of Commons itself can hear and a Minister refusing point blank to perform a duty legally required of him by Act of Parliament that interfered with the legislation-mandated role of the Commons would probably qualify.
It's all a bit House of Cards esque. I know Boris needs to demonstrate his Brexit credentials to win over BXP, and fight an extension tooth and nail as part of that, but not complying with an Act of Parliament? That seems like such a major leap.
I don't think he'll do it. If he does, he's toast.
The man isn't completely stupid, he must appreciate this? Well, at any rate, I hope to God he does!
Re: the current bonkers dispute over the PM defying the law...
1. It wouldn't work. The EU27 wouldn't countenance being seen to expel the UK based on an illegal act by the Prime Minister, and his behaviour would be challenged and defeated in the courts in both London and Strasbourg 2. In any subsequent GE, the flow of diehard Leave voters into the arms of the Tories might be enough, and in the right places, to compensate for the stampede of moderates away from them under such circumstances. But I doubt it 3. The Parliamentary Conservative Party does not consist primarily of total nutters. If the Prime Minister defies the law of the land, it will descend into chaos and probably disintegrate in any event
If Corbyn won't give Boris Johnson his October 15th election, and the Prime Minister wants to avoid compliance with the Benn legislation, his only realistic option is to resign and go into Opposition.
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brusneral election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
No he will not, what are they going to do? Arrest Boris for refusing to ask for an extension most voters don't want. If they do watch the Tory voteshare rise yet further as we enter the final stages of all out civil war of the executive against the legislature
Would you really want to set a precedent that the PM is above the law?
Would you really want to set a precedent that the legislature can defy the will of the people without consequence?
This legislature was elected after the referendum you muppet.
With both Labour and Tory manifestos committing to deliver Brexit
The Labour manifesto explicitly ruled No Deal.
The Labour Party voted against the Withdrawal Agreement too
Re: the current bonkers dispute over the PM defying the law...
1. It wouldn't work. The EU27 wouldn't countenance being seen to expel the UK based on an illegal act by the Prime Minister, and his behaviour would be challenged and defeated in the courts in both London and Strasbourg 2. In any subsequent GE, the flow of diehard Leave voters into the arms of the Tories might be enough, and in the right places, to compensate for the stampede of moderates away from them under such circumstances. But I doubt it 3. The Parliamentary Conservative Party does not consist primarily of total nutters. If the Prime Minister defies the law of the land, it will descend into chaos and probably disintegrate in any event
If Corbyn won't give Boris Johnson his October 15th election, and the Prime Minister wants to avoid compliance with the Benn legislation, his only realistic option is to resign and go into Opposition.
He should write the letter but make it clear he is doing it under duress from a Parliament that that has been totally unreasonable and has set itself against the people of this country (that is what he should put that in the letter itself)
I suspect Leave voters will be far more sympathetic than the Remainers think (all the way along Remainers have never understood Leavers and expecting a backlash against Boris if they stop him honouring his 31st October commitment is another example - the backlash will be against the Remainer Parliament - if they ever actually have the guts to face the electorate)
Contempt of Parliament is an offence that the House of Commons itself can hear and a Minister refusing point blank to perform a duty legally required of him by Act of Parliament that interfered with the legislation-mandated role of the Commons would probably qualify.
That may be right, but doesn't exclude the fact that the courts would have jurisdiction too, so there's a potential turf war there. I assume one would allow proceedings before it to be stayed in favour of the other. But I dunno - I doubt there is much in the way of precedent to guide us.
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
No he will not, what are they legislature
Yes. They will arrest the Prime Minister for breaking the law.
The Prime Minister CANNOT break the law. The government CANNOT break the law. u are.
-
It will become law this weekend when it receives Royal Assent.
Quite. I totally get if people think it is a terrible excuse for a law, but there are plenty of laws that are awful no doubt.
Indeed. There are many laws of England & Wales that I oppose. However, I do not deny that they are laws!
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
Have remainers broken the law? Bent not broken implies they have not in your eyes, even if they have behaved poorly. So breaking the law in response would seem an escalation.
I was more thinking about scenarios to block the passage of the bill. Not that I want such a think to happen, it' my view that if it's passed by the commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
@AlastairMeeks@Cyclefree are you able to educate us on this? What are the possible consequences legally?
It doesn't create a crime. Failure to comply with it would be judicially reviewable by the courts, and non compliance with their orders would be contempt of court.
And if judged to be in contempt, what happens next? A fine? A telling off? Plod dispatched to feel your collar?
If 17m voted to make it legal to kill gay people, would that be okay?
Good lord. How the two are even remotely equivalent is beyond me.
I didn’t say they were equivalent. I asked where the line was.
The current argument is about political maneuverings to deliver Brexit, against the wishes of a Commons that would rather remain. It's not a moral issue, or about whether people should be killed or not.
However a PM ignoring the law because he has ‘17m people behind him’ is.
Remainers have bent the constitution to get their way, why not leavers?
n response would seem an escalation.
I wathe commons, the queen must sign.
@HYUFD specifically said that Boris would ignore the law even if given royal assent and justified that because ‘17m’.
I said Boris would refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension as reported today, he cannot be forced to do so unless another PM replaces him after a VONC (though a VONC could also lead to a general election at last)
He will have to ask for an extension under the law of the land. Do you understand Benn? It would be a criminal act not to do so. Unless he resigns.
No he will not, what are they legislature
Yes. They will arrest the Prime Minister for breaking the law.
The Prime Minister CANNOT break the law. The government CANNOT break the law. u are.
-
It will become law this weekend when it receives Royal Assent.
Quite. I totally get if people think it is a terrible excuse for a law, but there are plenty of laws that are awful no doubt.
Indeed. There are many laws of England & Wales that I oppose. However, I do not deny that they are laws!
Well in fairness this one won't be for a few more days apparently. But that it was a ploy by remoaners is niether here nor there!
Re: the current bonkers dispute over the PM defying the law...
1. It wouldn't work. The EU27 wouldn't countenance being seen to expel the UK based on an illegal act by the Prime Minister, and his behaviour would be challenged and defeated in the courts in both London and Strasbourg 2. In any subsequent GE, the flow of diehard Leave voters into the arms of the Tories might be enough, and in the right places, to compensate for the stampede of moderates away from them under such circumstances. But I doubt it 3. The Parliamentary Conservative Party does not consist primarily of total nutters. If the Prime Minister defies the law of the land, it will descend into chaos and probably disintegrate in any event
If Corbyn won't give Boris Johnson his October 15th election, and the Prime Minister wants to avoid compliance with the Benn legislation, his only realistic option is to resign and go into Opposition.
Is 2 not projective thinking though? I can't see many Joe Publics being that appalled that the PM is disobeying a law that requires him to extend when he doesn't want to extend. They would probably say "if they want a PM to extend why don't they put in a PM that will extend?"
3 is probably true and there would be another wave of rebels. Boris could withdraw the whip buy then there would be even more. It would be an early Corbyn situation where the MPs hate Boris but the membership backs him. Only the MPs have more power in the Tories processes.
I suspect this will end up with Boris being as populist as he can for a few weeks with big shiny vote-winning policies and then resign to dump the problem on the Remainers. He could also commit to having a manifesto pledge to leave the EU regardless of another referendum.
It's going to be a close run thing with that happening or JRM being sacked.... remarkable how such a serial backbencher seems to be struggling with the front bench.
Have all tribal Tories gone quite so deranged as HYUFD appears to have? There really is no way back if they have.
Certainly the majority of Tories are determined that the Leave vote be respected no matter what the cost and are fully behind Boris in that aim as are the majority of voters in the latest polls.
Diehard Remainers do not realise the forces they might be about to unleash and Tories would be relatively mild compared to the Tommy Robinson led mob riots and mass Farage rallies of anger and fury if they try and arrest the PM for refusing to block Brexit
More bollocks I’m afraid this is a conservative problem no one else’s stop trying to raise the masses up behind a load of self entitled tax dodging elite who have played this brilliantly to their financial benefit
Spoken by a clueless liberal elitist with contempt for the working class and lower middle class majority who voted Leave, your day of reckoning may soon be at hand
You have no concept of what the so called working class want you’re only reference is opinion polls I am not by any description an elite but I am a liberal. What have you ever done in your life to improve those who’s vote you champion? I would also suggest that my life experiences are actually a far better reference than your pathetic support for a team that unfortunately will not be relegated. But I will save my energy now for dealing with real life problems tomorrow having filled my nightly social void.
How about Boris refuses to go ask for an extension, resigns as PM and defects to the Brexit Party to fight in the subsequent election, for absolute lolz.
Re: the current bonkers dispute over the PM defying the law...
1. It wouldn't work. The EU27 wouldn't countenance being seen to expel the UK based on an illegal act by the Prime Minister, and his behaviour would be challenged and defeated in the courts in both London and Strasbourg 2. In any subsequent GE, the flow of diehard Leave voters into the arms of the Tories might be enough, and in the right places, to compensate for the stampede of moderates away from them under such circumstances. But I doubt it 3. The Parliamentary Conservative Party does not consist primarily of total nutters. If the Prime Minister defies the law of the land, it will descend into chaos and probably disintegrate in any event
If Corbyn won't give Boris Johnson his October 15th election, and the Prime Minister wants to avoid compliance with the Benn legislation, his only realistic option is to resign and go into Opposition.
And hand the country to Corbyn? No thanks!
There is no majority in the Commons for Corbyn either, the LDs likely veto him and Boris cannot be removed without an alternative so he likely has to stay until a GE is finally granted
Re: the current bonkers dispute over the PM defying the law...
1. It wouldn't work. The EU27 wouldn't countenance being seen to expel the UK based on an illegal act by the Prime Minister, and his behaviour would be challenged and defeated in the courts in both London and Strasbourg 2. In any subsequent GE, the flow of diehard Leave voters into the arms of the Tories might be enough, and in the right places, to compensate for the stampede of moderates away from them under such circumstances. But I doubt it 3. The Parliamentary Conservative Party does not consist primarily of total nutters. If the Prime Minister defies the law of the land, it will descend into chaos and probably disintegrate in any event
If Corbyn won't give Boris Johnson his October 15th election, and the Prime Minister wants to avoid compliance with the Benn legislation, his only realistic option is to resign and go into Opposition.
He should write the letter but make it clear he is doing it under duress from a Parliament that that has been totally unreasonable and has set itself against the people of this country (that is what he should put that in the letter itself)
I suspect Leave voters will be far more sympathetic than the Remainers think (all the way along Remainers have never understood Leavers and expecting a backlash against Boris if they stop him honouring his 31st October commitment is another example)
The main reason I expect a backlash against Boris is I don't think his rigid commitment to the date and trashing of the WA as a backup option makes sense unless that backlash is what he also expects, given the high probability parliament would attempt to force an extension on him. And while Farage's utterances may need to be taken with a pinch of salt, and granted he may not be as effective as he thinks, the way he has responded to all this makes it clear he at least hopes to wreck Boris's chances if we still haven't left by then.
Comments
A leave voting northern consituency and a Lab majority of only 2,000 with the MP being one the most prominant faces telling leave voters to go to hell - very likely.
https://twitter.com/davemacladd/status/1169661176105639937?s=21k
I suspect in such circumstances Boris would also ask the Queen to prorogue Parliament until it agreed to a GE and I suspect she would agree
That is of no concern to the Police. If the PM commits a criminal act, the police are obliged to enforce the law and arrest.
No one is above the law.
Short version - you don’t quite understand where law comes from.
The Prime Minister CANNOT break the law. The government CANNOT break the law.
What kind of a fucking CONSERVATIVE are you?
I take it that you are fine for the precedent this sets to be followed up by Corbyn. Or Farage. Or some future extreme populist. The rule of law is a rather basic fundamental principle in the United Kingdom. That you want to toss it aside for narrow political gain demonstrates what an utter utter tosser you are.
I was musing the other day that they could resurrect impeachment
‘Kn’ll, if this is anywhere near serious I’m off to borrow a shotgun. And a couple of dozen cartridges!
AKA donning khaki and picking up a rifle.
Watch them cheer as he strings the Jews up. It's the WILL OF THE PEOPLE mate. Doesn't matter if it's illegal, the people who passed the law are traitors anyway, look, they're on the next lamp post.
That was a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of whatever the fuck HYUFD thinks is a Conservative Party
By this time or at this time, either through FTPA or without, the date of the next GE will be fixed. Corbyn will not be able to do anything dramatic as Labour will be a minority party themselves.
Therefore, this cannot be a coup.
Diehard Remainers do not realise the forces they might be about to unleash and Tories would be relatively mild compared to the Tommy Robinson led mob riots and mass Farage rallies of anger and fury if they try and arrest the PM for refusing to block Brexit without an election
Do we still have that little Javascript widget that was around some years ago? You could use it to block ravings of the more demented posters.
1. It wouldn't work. The EU27 wouldn't countenance being seen to expel the UK based on an illegal act by the Prime Minister, and his behaviour would be challenged and defeated in the courts in both London and Strasbourg
2. In any subsequent GE, the flow of diehard Leave voters into the arms of the Tories might be enough, and in the right places, to compensate for the stampede of moderates away from them under such circumstances. But I doubt it
3. The Parliamentary Conservative Party does not consist primarily of total nutters. If the Prime Minister defies the law of the land, it will descend into chaos and probably disintegrate in any event
If Corbyn won't give Boris Johnson his October 15th election, and the Prime Minister wants to avoid compliance with the Benn legislation, his only realistic option is to resign and go into Opposition.
https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4549/procedural-fairness/?highlight=contempt of parliament
(But in all seriousness, thanks, good post)
The man isn't completely stupid, he must appreciate this? Well, at any rate, I hope to God he does!
Maybe we can get a view from planet HYUFD?
I suspect Leave voters will be far more sympathetic than the Remainers think (all the way along Remainers have never understood Leavers and expecting a backlash against Boris if they stop him honouring his 31st October commitment is another example - the backlash will be against the Remainer Parliament - if they ever actually have the guts to face the electorate)
3 is probably true and there would be another wave of rebels. Boris could withdraw the whip buy then there would be even more. It would be an early Corbyn situation where the MPs hate Boris but the membership backs him. Only the MPs have more power in the Tories processes.
I suspect this will end up with Boris being as populist as he can for a few weeks with big shiny vote-winning policies and then resign to dump the problem on the Remainers. He could also commit to having a manifesto pledge to leave the EU regardless of another referendum.