Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Government of Laws

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited September 7 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Government of Laws

A week is a long time in politics, as Harold Wilson reportedly said. This last week has been one such.

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.

    Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566

    Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.

    Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.

    Is he monarch now ?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,489

    Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.

    Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.

    You guys are desperate.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Thompson, the PM isn't the Queen.

    FPT: Good afternoon, everyone.

    F1: ha. What a farce.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,014

    Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.

    Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.

    So Johnson is an undercover Republican now?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566

    Mr. Thompson, the PM isn't the Queen.

    FPT: Good afternoon, everyone.

    F1: ha. What a farce.

    But don’t you have a farcical winning bet ?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 6,337
    Sam Coates on Twitter saying Dom Cummings stated he didn't think the act imparted a legal compulsion on Boris or that it was unenforceable so hes canvassing for thoughts from lawyers to see if that's true. I think this will definitely be in the courts before Oct 19
  • FPT
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Are you suffering from memory loss or something? The reason we're talking about this is that the opposition won't be able to VONC the government because the Queen has allowed the prorogation of parliament on the prime minister's advice!

    The opposition could have VONC'd or agreed an election already. It is only due to silly gameplaying they haven't.

    Assent has to be denied before prorogation - I would think its reasonable to say that if assent is denied then the opposition should be entitled to immediately table a VONC and prorogation couldn't begin until that is voted on.
    Why do you think that? I've seen no evidence to suggest it would be possible to VONC the government if royal assent is refused immediately before prorogation.

    I think you're just making a lot of this stuff up as you go along.
    Assent can't be denied after prorogation it has to be before. I think if Assent is denied the Speaker would - must surely - immediately call an urgent debate where a VONC could be table. If Boris simply said "no you're prorogued now" then I think the courts would say no.

    The courts have said that prorogation this week some time would be lawful, that's not to say that an instant prorogation at the start of the week refusing time for the opposition to respond to a veto of royal assent would be lawful.
  • Nigelb said:

    Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.

    Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.

    Is he monarch now ?
    He's better than the monarch, he's the Prime Minister. He exercises the monarchs royal prerogatives via his puppet the monarch.

    For as long as monarchists here want to keep up the constitutional monarchy pretence of having a so called democracy under a monarchy that is the only legitimate way to act.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,940
    Another good, thoughtful, and thought-provoking piece from Ms Cyclefree.
  • glwglw Posts: 5,372
    The Conservative* Party having already given up being the party of business, and the party of sound finances, now appears to be about to dispense with being the party of law and order. What will they be left with other than being in favour of a crash-out Brexit?

    * Kippers in disguise.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,213

    FPT

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Are you suffering from memory loss or something? The reason we're talking about this is that the opposition won't be able to VONC the government because the Queen has allowed the prorogation of parliament on the prime minister's advice!

    The opposition could have VONC'd or agreed an election already. It is only due to silly gameplaying they haven't.

    Assent has to be denied before prorogation - I would think its reasonable to say that if assent is denied then the opposition should be entitled to immediately table a VONC and prorogation couldn't begin until that is voted on.
    Why do you think that? I've seen no evidence to suggest it would be possible to VONC the government if royal assent is refused immediately before prorogation.

    I think you're just making a lot of this stuff up as you go along.
    Assent can't be denied after prorogation it has to be before. I think if Assent is denied the Speaker would - must surely - immediately call an urgent debate where a VONC could be table. If Boris simply said "no you're prorogued now" then I think the courts would say no.

    The courts have said that prorogation this week some time would be lawful, that's not to say that an instant prorogation at the start of the week refusing time for the opposition to respond to a veto of royal assent would be lawful.
    Is that it? "I think ..."
  • Mr. Thompson, the PM isn't the Queen.

    FPT: Good afternoon, everyone.

    F1: ha. What a farce.

    You're right, the Queen is the Queen. The Queen operates on the advice of her ministers.

    Unless the Queen wants to get involved in politics, Boris is her minister. If he advises not to give assent then that is his advice - is she going to get involved and overrule him?

    If someone else in the Commons thinks assent should be given let them vote accordingly in the Commons to give them confidence.
  • glwglw Posts: 5,372

    He's better than the monarch,

    No he bloody well isn't.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. B, I did. Very mildly green. Could've easily been red or fully green, so...
  • glw said:

    He's better than the monarch,

    No he bloody well isn't.
    Yes he is, he is elected. He stood for politics. The public chose him. She just happened to be born.

    I'd say the same about May, Cameron, Brown, Blair and all their elected predecessors.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,014
    This might just be colourful language from Johnson, but it was his colourful language, in silly columns written in Brussels, that did so much to normalize opposition to the EU. Words have power.

    Of course this is not the first step down this road. May's government pointedly refused to defend the Judiciary from attacks in the Leave-supporting Press.

    This will continue to worsen unless the hard work of opposing it is prioritised over short-term partisan and personal considerations.

    I am pessimistic.
  • Chris said:

    FPT

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Are you suffering from memory loss or something? The reason we're talking about this is that the opposition won't be able to VONC the government because the Queen has allowed the prorogation of parliament on the prime minister's advice!

    The opposition could have VONC'd or agreed an election already. It is only due to silly gameplaying they haven't.

    Assent has to be denied before prorogation - I would think its reasonable to say that if assent is denied then the opposition should be entitled to immediately table a VONC and prorogation couldn't begin until that is voted on.
    Why do you think that? I've seen no evidence to suggest it would be possible to VONC the government if royal assent is refused immediately before prorogation.

    I think you're just making a lot of this stuff up as you go along.
    Assent can't be denied after prorogation it has to be before. I think if Assent is denied the Speaker would - must surely - immediately call an urgent debate where a VONC could be table. If Boris simply said "no you're prorogued now" then I think the courts would say no.

    The courts have said that prorogation this week some time would be lawful, that's not to say that an instant prorogation at the start of the week refusing time for the opposition to respond to a veto of royal assent would be lawful.
    Is that it? "I think ..."
    Yes my opinions are my thoughts. What else would they be?

    You think the courts would just demur if Boris denied assent then prorogued Parliament days earlier than the window closed?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 35,409
    Does the government get involved in the process of Royal Assent? Or does a bill effectively go from the Palace of Westminster directly to HMQ? Since Royal Assent is automatically given, how does anyone stop it?

    https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/
  • eekeek Posts: 5,520

    Sam Coates on Twitter saying Dom Cummings stated he didn't think the act imparted a legal compulsion on Boris or that it was unenforceable so hes canvassing for thoughts from lawyers to see if that's true. I think this will definitely be in the courts before Oct 19

    They really are a party that keeps on giving at the moment. And while it may play to the Brexit contingent it isn’t going to impress the general public.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Thompson, the PM does not have a veto right over the entire Palace of Westminster. He isn't a Roman consul. The Commons and Lords are not mere debating chambers awaiting the nod of approval of the Glorious Prime Minister for their words to be given meaning, or frustrated by the shaken head of denial.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    F1: stewards are investigating the end of Q3. Not sure why. It was clearly a clownish nonsense.
  • The PM now has a few weeks were he is impotent. He needs to be seen to be doing things, even weird random things. He will back down when push comes to shove.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 6,337
    eek said:

    Sam Coates on Twitter saying Dom Cummings stated he didn't think the act imparted a legal compulsion on Boris or that it was unenforceable so hes canvassing for thoughts from lawyers to see if that's true. I think this will definitely be in the courts before Oct 19

    They really are a party that keeps on giving at the moment. And while it may play to the Brexit contingent it isn’t going to impress the general public.
    It would split along Brexit preference just like Gina Miller and John Majors case. It reinforces your existing view.
    Ultimately either the bill is watertight or it isn't in legal terms
  • Mr. Thompson, the PM does not have a veto right over the entire Palace of Westminster. He isn't a Roman consul. The Commons and Lords are not mere debating chambers awaiting the nod of approval of the Glorious Prime Minister for their words to be given meaning, or frustrated by the shaken head of denial.

    The PM should or royal assent is meaningless.

    That doesn't make the Commons and Lords mere debating chambers since a veto would be a nuclear option - and the Commons can immediately on a simple majority pull down the PM and replace them with another.

    When the POTUS vetoes a bill it takes more than a simple majority to override that veto and doing so doesn't pull down the POTUS.
  • 44 - 4
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,014

    Does the government get involved in the process of Royal Assent? Or does a bill effectively go from the Palace of Westminster directly to HMQ? Since Royal Assent is automatically given, how does anyone stop it?

    https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/

    Royal Assent is normally granted during a meeting of the Privy Council, though there are different procedures at the end of a Parliamentary session.

    Privy Council meetings could be delayed, or the paperwork forgotten, but I think the process at the end of a Parliamentary session is more problematic.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,940
    Being aggressive towards the Queen isn't going to play well with the Great British Public.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,213
    edited September 7

    Chris said:


    Is that it? "I think ..."

    Yes my opinions are my thoughts. What else would they be?

    You think the courts would just demur if Boris denied assent then prorogued Parliament days earlier than the window closed?
    You're now saying the courts would intervene - on no evidence at all.

    What you said before was this:

    If the PM inherits all prerogative powers then if Parliament passes a bill and the PM denies assent then Parliament may VoNC the PM and choose a new PM who signs the bill. Problem solved.

    It's sheer nonsense. If you can bring yourself just for a minute to read something, read about what happens on prorogation and tell us where the vote of no confidence fits in:

    A Royal Commission consisting of five Peers, all Privy Councillors, appointed by the Queen enter the Chamber, and instruct Black Rod to summon the House of Commons, which he does.

    When the Commons arrive, the Royal Commission and representatives of the Commons, including the Speaker, the Clerk and the Serjeant at Arms, ceremonially greet each other: the Lords doff their hats and the Members and officials of the Commons bow in return.

    The official command of the Queen appointing her Royal Commission is read by the Reading Clerk from a piece of parchment. The Clerk of the Crown then announces from the Opposition side of the table the name of each Act that is to be passed.

    As each Act is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament turns to face MPs, declaring 'La Reyne le veult' - Norman French for 'The Queen wishes it.' This ceremony signifies Royal Assent for each bill. After all bills have passed Royal Assent, the Leader of the House reads a speech from the Queen reviewing the past year.

    Like the Queen's Speech at State Opening, this is written by the Government and reviews the legislation and achievements of the Government over the past year.

    Parliament is then officially prorogued. After prorogation, and especially on the dissolution of Parliament before a general election, Members shake the hand of the Speaker on leaving the Chamber.

    https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentwork/offices-and-ceremonies/overview/prorogation1/prorogation/
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,014
    Test cricket, eh?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,940
    In other news, Aussies now 44/4. Sadly Smith isn't one of them!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 28,335
    Boris is entitled to resign as PM if he doesn't want to carry out this policy. I'm not sure what happens after that though.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566

    F1: stewards are investigating the end of Q3. Not sure why. It was clearly a clownish nonsense.

    Well there were suggestions that Vettel went off track in his first run and Bottas did not slow sufficiently for the Raikkonen yellow flag, so it might be that ?
  • Does the government get involved in the process of Royal Assent? Or does a bill effectively go from the Palace of Westminster directly to HMQ? Since Royal Assent is automatically given, how does anyone stop it?

    https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/

    Royal Assent is normally granted during a meeting of the Privy Council, though there are different procedures at the end of a Parliamentary session.

    Privy Council meetings could be delayed, or the paperwork forgotten, but I think the process at the end of a Parliamentary session is more problematic.
    At Privy Council HMQ acts upon the advice of her Privy Councillors.

    If the PM and 2 other relevant Privy Councillors put their name down as advising her to refuse assent then why should she override them? Let the Commons advise her she should get a new PM if that is their choice.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640
    edited September 7
    Gabs2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    PClipp said:

    Chris said:

    Boris Johnson being compared to Gandhi?
    Now I really have heard it all.

    Both sought independence for their country.
    But we are independent now. It is ABDPJohnson and the stupid Tories who want to subjugate us to Trump and the Americans.
    We're not independent now. Laws can be made in Brussels that nobody in this country voted for. That's not independence.

    Trump and the Americans is irrelevant BS. If Corbyn gets elected post-Brexit something tells me our government won't be close to the Americans.
    That's not quite true.

    The Commission implements directives, which we are treaty bound to implement into UK law. (Hence the xx% of UK law is made in Brussels.)

    The Brussel Parliament, AIUI, has no direct law making ability.

    "Ah ha! But that's the same thing, right?"

    Well, if that's the measure, then there's no country on earth that's independent (except maybe Bhutan), because there are lots of bodies whose directives where treaty bound to implement, under penalty of unlimited fine.

    The issue, really, is not that we're bound to implement policies from a foreign buearacracy, but simply that the breadth of the directives goes far beyond what we in the UK are comfortable with.
    What is the sanction if a country simply doesn't implement the directives into national law? Has it ever happened?
    It happens all the time. Indeed, there is a whole segment of EU law related to unimplemented directives, notably the Van Duyn ('74) and Ratti ('79) cases.

    The reality is that the only stick that the EU has to enforce compliance is monetary. If a member state does not implement the directive regarding the maximum organic compound of wire wool (a part of the broader directive on industrial emissions, 2010/75/EU), then it is possible that funding is reduced or withdrawn. This is clearly a much bigger stick for net beneficiaries than net contributors. Although, ironically, the Italians, the Hungarians, the Poles and the Greeks (all beneficiaries) have IIRC the most unimplemented directives.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,131
    AndyJS said:

    Boris is entitled to resign as PM if he doesn't want to carry out this policy. I'm not sure what happens after that though.

    The Ticking Bomb gets passed to someone else.
  • Chris said:

    Chris said:


    Is that it? "I think ..."

    Yes my opinions are my thoughts. What else would they be?

    You think the courts would just demur if Boris denied assent then prorogued Parliament days earlier than the window closed?
    You're now saying the courts would intervene - on no evidence at all.

    What you said before was this:

    If the PM inherits all prerogative powers then if Parliament passes a bill and the PM denies assent then Parliament may VoNC the PM and choose a new PM who signs the bill. Problem solved.

    It's sheer nonsense. If you can bring yourself just for a minute to read something, read about what happens on prorogation and tell us where the vote of no confidence fits in:

    A Royal Commission consisting of five Peers, all Privy Councillors, appointed by the Queen enter the Chamber, and instruct Black Rod to summon the House of Commons, which he does.

    When the Commons arrive, the Royal Commission and representatives of the Commons, including the Speaker, the Clerk and the Serjeant at Arms, ceremonially greet each other: the Lords doff their hats and the Members and officials of the Commons bow in return.

    The official command of the Queen appointing her Royal Commission is read by the Reading Clerk from a piece of parchment. The Clerk of the Crown then announces from the Opposition side of the table the name of each Act that is to be passed.

    As each Act is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament turns to face MPs, declaring 'La Reyne le veult' - Norman French for 'The Queen wishes it.' This ceremony signifies Royal Assent for each bill. After all bills have passed Royal Assent, the Leader of the House reads a speech from the Queen reviewing the past year.

    Like the Queen's Speech at State Opening, this is written by the Government and reviews the legislation and achievements of the Government over the past year.

    Parliament is then officially prorogued. After prorogation, and especially on the dissolution of Parliament before a general election, Members shake the hand of the Speaker on leaving the Chamber.

    https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentwork/offices-and-ceremonies/overview/prorogation1/prorogation/
    How does that change anything I wrote?

    If royal assent is denied then Speaker Bercow would instantly grant an urgent debate. If at that point Black Rod came to demand the Commons to come to the Lords I think Speaker Bercow would absolutely refuse to do so. MPs won't calmly proceed with this ceremony, they would refuse and rightly so!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566

    Nigelb said:

    Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.

    Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.

    Is he monarch now ?
    He's better than the monarch, he's the Prime Minister. He exercises the monarchs royal prerogatives via his puppet the monarch.

    For as long as monarchists here want to keep up the constitutional monarchy pretence of having a so called democracy under a monarchy that is the only legitimate way to act.
    As usual, you are missing the point.
    The sovereign may not be challenged in the courts; ministers may.

    And in this case, would be.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 28,335
    edited September 7

    AndyJS said:

    Boris is entitled to resign as PM if he doesn't want to carry out this policy. I'm not sure what happens after that though.

    The Ticking Bomb gets passed to someone else.
    That may be Corbyn. But what if no-one wants to do it, (except people who clearly don't have the support of anything like a majority of MPs?)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Thompson, we don't have a president, and POTUS is head of state, whereas the PM is not.

    What precedent or legal grounds are there to refuse assent or advise that?

    Mr. B, it might be Bottas/Vettel. But the tweet makes it sound more general:
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,940
    edited September 7

    Chris said:

    Chris said:


    Is that it? "I think ..."

    Yes my opinions are my thoughts. What else would they be?

    You think the courts would just demur if Boris denied assent then prorogued Parliament days earlier than the window closed?
    You're now saying the courts would intervene - on no evidence at all.

    What you said before was this:

    If the PM inherits all prerogative powers then if Parliament passes a bill and the PM denies assent then Parliament may VoNC the PM and choose a new PM who signs the bill. Problem solved.

    It's sheer nonsense. If you can bring yourself just for a minute to read something, read about what happens on prorogation and tell us where the vote of no confidence fits in:

    A Royal Commission consisting of five Peers, all Privy Councillors, appointed by the Queen enter the Chamber, and instruct Black Rod to summon the House of Commons, which he does.

    When the Commons arrive, the Royal Commission and representatives of the Commons, including the Speaker, the Clerk and the Serjeant at Arms, ceremonially greet each other: the Lords doff their hats and the Members and officials of the Commons bow in return.

    The official command of the Queen appointing her Royal Commission is read by the Reading Clerk from a piece of parchment. The Clerk of the Crown then announces from the Opposition side of the table the name of each Act that is to be passed.

    As each Act is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament turns to face MPs, declaring 'La Reyne le veult' - Norman French for 'The Queen wishes it.' This ceremony signifies Royal Assent for each bill. After all bills have passed Royal Assent, the Leader of the House reads a speech from the Queen reviewing the past year.

    Like the Queen's Speech at State Opening, this is written by the Government and reviews the legislation and achievements of the Government over the past year.

    Parliament is then officially prorogued. After prorogation, and especially on the dissolution of Parliament before a general election, Members shake the hand of the Speaker on leaving the Chamber.

    https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentwork/offices-and-ceremonies/overview/prorogation1/prorogation/
    How does that change anything I wrote?

    If royal assent is denied then Speaker Bercow would instantly grant an urgent debate. If at that point Black Rod came to demand the Commons to come to the Lords I think Speaker Bercow would absolutely refuse to do so. MPs won't calmly proceed with this ceremony, they would refuse and rightly so!
    Dear God, we'll have armed soldiers in the Palace of Westminster next.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,081
    edited September 7

    The PM now has a few weeks were he is impotent. He needs to be seen to be doing things, even weird random things. He will back down when push comes to shove.

    The trouble with this is that by teasing these ideas he's filling the brexit enthusiasts' heads with the idea that he has lots of viable options, and they're then making up all kinds of amazing stories to try to argue that these are totally reasonable things to do. Then if he tries to *not* do them, they'll think he's let them down.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640

    Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.

    Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.

    Surely only the monarch can grant or deny royal assent.
  • eek said:

    Sam Coates on Twitter saying Dom Cummings stated he didn't think the act imparted a legal compulsion on Boris or that it was unenforceable so hes canvassing for thoughts from lawyers to see if that's true. I think this will definitely be in the courts before Oct 19

    They really are a party that keeps on giving at the moment. And while it may play to the Brexit contingent it isn’t going to impress the general public.
    It would split along Brexit preference just like Gina Miller and John Majors case. It reinforces your existing view.
    Ultimately either the bill is watertight or it isn't in legal terms
    The legal part isn't as important as the Commons numbers.
    Even if there is a loophole, and even if its use isn't a really bad look, it seems pretty clear that there are the.numbers in the Commons to depose him in necessary, and to arrange an election at a time not of the government's choosing.
    Now, that may be the masterplan. But the government may have overdone the "annoying crusty old MPs" thing.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 6,337

    Chris said:

    Chris said:


    Is that it? "I think ..."

    Yes my opinions are my thoughts. What else would they be?

    You think the courts would just demur if Boris denied assent then prorogued Parliament days earlier than the window closed?
    You're now saying the courts would intervene - on no evidence at all.

    What you said before was this:

    If the PM inherits all prerogative powers then if Parliament passes a bill and the PM denies assent then Parliament may VoNC the PM and choose a new PM who signs the bill. Problem solved.

    It's sheer nonsense. If you can bring yourself just for a minute to read something, read about what happens on prorogation and tell us where the vote of no confidence fits in:

    A Royal Commission consisting of five Peers, all Privy Councillors, appointed by the Queen enter the Chamber, and instruct Black Rod to summon the House of Commons, which he does.

    When the Commons arrive, the Royal Commission and representatives of the Commons, including the Speaker, the Clerk and the Serjeant at Arms, ceremonially greet each other: the Lords doff their hats and the Members and officials of the Commons bow in return.

    The official command of the Queen appointing her Royal Commission is read by the Reading Clerk from a piece of parchment. The Clerk of the Crown then announces from the Opposition side of the table the name of each Act that is to be passed.

    As each Act is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament turns to face MPs, declaring 'La Reyne le veult' - Norman French for 'The Queen wishes it.' This ceremony signifies Royal Assent for each bill. After all bills have passed Royal Assent, the Leader of the House reads a speech from the Queen reviewing the past year.

    Like the Queen's Speech at State Opening, this is written by the Government and reviews the legislation and achievements of the Government over the past year.

    Parliament is then officially prorogued. After prorogation, and especially on the dissolution of Parliament before a general election, Members shake the hand of the Speaker on leaving the Chamber.

    https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentwork/offices-and-ceremonies/overview/prorogation1/prorogation/
    How does that change anything I wrote?

    If royal assent is denied then Speaker Bercow would instantly grant an urgent debate. If at that point Black Rod came to demand the Commons to come to the Lords I think Speaker Bercow would absolutely refuse to do so. MPs won't calmly proceed with this ceremony, they would refuse and rightly so!
    Dear God, we'll have armed soldiers in the Palace of Westminster next.
    That fella in the tights with the sword will have a fit of pique
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,014

    Does the government get involved in the process of Royal Assent? Or does a bill effectively go from the Palace of Westminster directly to HMQ? Since Royal Assent is automatically given, how does anyone stop it?

    https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/

    Royal Assent is normally granted during a meeting of the Privy Council, though there are different procedures at the end of a Parliamentary session.

    Privy Council meetings could be delayed, or the paperwork forgotten, but I think the process at the end of a Parliamentary session is more problematic.
    At Privy Council HMQ acts upon the advice of her Privy Councillors.

    If the PM and 2 other relevant Privy Councillors put their name down as advising her to refuse assent then why should she override them? Let the Commons advise her she should get a new PM if that is their choice.
    Yes, they could do that, but it would be very bad advice to advise the Monarch to go against the will of both Houses of Parliament.

    It would explicitly politicise HMQ, destroying the constitutional settlement that has governed this country.

    And what for? Nothing. As you say it would lead directly to a VONC, Corbyn would suddenly look a much safer option for PM, and, when the Queen then does grant Royal Assent, you will have united both extremes in the Brexit debate into wanting to depose her.

    How does that advance anyone's interests (except for Corbyn's, Republicans, political journalists and constitutional lawyers)?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 6,337

    eek said:

    Sam Coates on Twitter saying Dom Cummings stated he didn't think the act imparted a legal compulsion on Boris or that it was unenforceable so hes canvassing for thoughts from lawyers to see if that's true. I think this will definitely be in the courts before Oct 19

    They really are a party that keeps on giving at the moment. And while it may play to the Brexit contingent it isn’t going to impress the general public.
    It would split along Brexit preference just like Gina Miller and John Majors case. It reinforces your existing view.
    Ultimately either the bill is watertight or it isn't in legal terms
    The legal part isn't as important as the Commons numbers.
    Even if there is a loophole, and even if its use isn't a really bad look, it seems pretty clear that there are the.numbers in the Commons to depose him in necessary, and to arrange an election at a time not of the government's choosing.
    Now, that may be the masterplan. But the government may have overdone the "annoying crusty old MPs" thing.
    Well hes gunning for a Boris and the Angels vs the devious MPs election
  • The PM now has a few weeks were he is impotent. He needs to be seen to be doing things, even weird random things. He will back down when push comes to shove.

    The trouble with this is that by teasing these ideas he's filling the brexit enthusiasts' heads with the idea that he has lots of viable options, and they're then making up all kinds of amazing stories to try to argue that these are totally reasonable things to do. Then if he tries to *not* do them, they'll think he's let them down.
    There are problems with any of his options ever since he agreed to acquiesce to the French Presidents arbitrary exit date.

    The plan is divide the county more and more, spin him as trying everything to stop those dastardly traitors. His base will mostly stick with him but it does give Farage a useful line. I would not be surprised to see Farage in the Tory party and Rudd, Ellwood, Hancock having left within 6 months.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566
    rcs1000 said:

    Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.

    Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.

    Surely only the monarch can grant or deny royal assent.
    Philip is perfectly correct in saying the monarch will, almost invariably, act on the advice of her ministers.
    That advice is subject, of course, to judicial review.

    In this case it would, and should be. This will not be the last time we have a minority government, and the rules for settling disputes between the executive and legislature appear to be in many cases, like this one, entirely opaque.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,131
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Boris is entitled to resign as PM if he doesn't want to carry out this policy. I'm not sure what happens after that though.

    The Ticking Bomb gets passed to someone else.
    That may be Corbyn. But what if no-one wants to do it, (except people who clearly don't have the support of anything like a majority of MPs?)
    It is, and always has, been Brexit or Corby.

    Corby holds all the cards. He is the natural & obvious successor.

    HM will surely ask him -- I can conceive of no situation in which she will not ask Her official Leader of the Opposition first.

    And Corby doesn't care that much if we No Deal Brexit. He can blame the Tories (the one thing he has plenty of experience in) So, Corby can dig his heels in & wait & wait & wait till the LibDems & the Independents .... wilt.

    They have to wilt because they believe No Deal Brexit is an Apocalypse.
  • Nigelb said:

    F1: stewards are investigating the end of Q3. Not sure why. It was clearly a clownish nonsense.

    Well there were suggestions that Vettel went off track in his first run and Bottas did not slow sufficiently for the Raikkonen yellow flag, so it might be that ?
    No, they are investigating the final lap. I understand there was a similar incident in the F3 race yesterday. In that case 19 drivers got penalties. With so many penalties it didn't actually make much difference to the grid. However, if the stewards are consistent, we could see most of those in Q3 getting grid penalties.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566
    edited September 7

    Mr. Thompson, we don't have a president, and POTUS is head of state, whereas the PM is not.

    What precedent or legal grounds are there to refuse assent or advise that?

    Mr. B, it might be Bottas/Vettel. But the tweet makes it sound more general:


    I think there is also the manner in which drivers slowed down in an attempt to avoid being at the front of the queue.
    They were warned about this before qualifying as being potentially dangerous, so, given they ignored the warning, it seems entirely sensible to have a calm look at what actually happened.
  • AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Boris is entitled to resign as PM if he doesn't want to carry out this policy. I'm not sure what happens after that though.

    The Ticking Bomb gets passed to someone else.
    That may be Corbyn. But what if no-one wants to do it, (except people who clearly don't have the support of anything like a majority of MPs?)
    Doesn't a GE then follow after 14 days ?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 30,520

    Sam Coates on Twitter saying Dom Cummings stated he didn't think the act imparted a legal compulsion on Boris or that it was unenforceable so hes canvassing for thoughts from lawyers to see if that's true. I think this will definitely be in the courts before Oct 19

    Cummings is doing Farage’s job for him. By making people think Boris could just ignore it, he’s going to make Boris pay the political price when the extension eventually comes.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,213

    Chris said:


    You're now saying the courts would intervene - on no evidence at all.

    What you said before was this:

    If the PM inherits all prerogative powers then if Parliament passes a bill and the PM denies assent then Parliament may VoNC the PM and choose a new PM who signs the bill. Problem solved.

    It's sheer nonsense. If you can bring yourself just for a minute to read something, read about what happens on prorogation and tell us where the vote of no confidence fits in:

    A Royal Commission consisting of five Peers, all Privy Councillors, appointed by the Queen enter the Chamber, and instruct Black Rod to summon the House of Commons, which he does.

    When the Commons arrive, the Royal Commission and representatives of the Commons, including the Speaker, the Clerk and the Serjeant at Arms, ceremonially greet each other: the Lords doff their hats and the Members and officials of the Commons bow in return.

    The official command of the Queen appointing her Royal Commission is read by the Reading Clerk from a piece of parchment. The Clerk of the Crown then announces from the Opposition side of the table the name of each Act that is to be passed.

    As each Act is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament turns to face MPs, declaring 'La Reyne le veult' - Norman French for 'The Queen wishes it.' This ceremony signifies Royal Assent for each bill. After all bills have passed Royal Assent, the Leader of the House reads a speech from the Queen reviewing the past year.

    Like the Queen's Speech at State Opening, this is written by the Government and reviews the legislation and achievements of the Government over the past year.

    Parliament is then officially prorogued. After prorogation, and especially on the dissolution of Parliament before a general election, Members shake the hand of the Speaker on leaving the Chamber.

    https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentwork/offices-and-ceremonies/overview/prorogation1/prorogation/

    How does that change anything I wrote?

    If royal assent is denied then Speaker Bercow would instantly grant an urgent debate. If at that point Black Rod came to demand the Commons to come to the Lords I think Speaker Bercow would absolutely refuse to do so. MPs won't calmly proceed with this ceremony, they would refuse and rightly so!
    No, please just read it. The Commons have already been summoned to the Lords. They aren't sitting any more. There is royal assent (or not), then a speech, and then parliament is prorogued. There is no opportunity for an "urgent debate" in the House of Commons.

    As for MPs refusing to proceed with the ceremony, "and rightly so!", you've only just told us on the other thread that you think the government "should 100% refuse royal assent."

    How can anyone make sense of such drivel?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Bridge, if all or 8/10 Q3 drivers get significant penalties, Verstappen for a podium suddenly looks tempting. Not checked the odds, though, and I'd be surprised if they all get penalties. Big call.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.

    Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.

    Is he monarch now ?
    He's better than the monarch, he's the Prime Minister. He exercises the monarchs royal prerogatives via his puppet the monarch.

    For as long as monarchists here want to keep up the constitutional monarchy pretence of having a so called democracy under a monarchy that is the only legitimate way to act.
    As usual, you are missing the point.
    The sovereign may not be challenged in the courts; ministers may.

    And in this case, would be.
    So be it. I have no problem with that, its not a missed point.

    Though there'd be no need for it to go to the courts if the Commons VONC Boris and soundings give another minister for HMQ to call.
  • eek said:

    Sam Coates on Twitter saying Dom Cummings stated he didn't think the act imparted a legal compulsion on Boris or that it was unenforceable so hes canvassing for thoughts from lawyers to see if that's true. I think this will definitely be in the courts before Oct 19

    They really are a party that keeps on giving at the moment. And while it may play to the Brexit contingent it isn’t going to impress the general public.
    It would split along Brexit preference just like Gina Miller and John Majors case. It reinforces your existing view.
    Ultimately either the bill is watertight or it isn't in legal terms
    The legal part isn't as important as the Commons numbers.
    Even if there is a loophole, and even if its use isn't a really bad look, it seems pretty clear that there are the.numbers in the Commons to depose him in necessary, and to arrange an election at a time not of the government's choosing.
    Now, that may be the masterplan. But the government may have overdone the "annoying crusty old MPs" thing.
    Well hes gunning for a Boris and the Angels vs the devious MPs election
    Absolutely. But this weeks antics mean that he can't control when that happens, and it looks like opposition leaders have grasped that.
    This week was clearly meant to be Campaign Launch, but all the goodies have been spaffed away.
  • Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.

    Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.

    He can't. Royal assent is a formality. It is never denied. If Boris tried to drag the Queen into politics by asking her to refuse or delay assent to this bill he will, I am quite certain, be told where to go.
  • Mr. Thompson, we don't have a president, and POTUS is head of state, whereas the PM is not.

    What precedent or legal grounds are there to refuse assent or advise that?

    1707 Queen Anne refused consent on the advice of her ministers.

    If the Commons wishes to change who HMQ's ministers are they have that right available to them. But until then constitutionally HMQ should follow the advice of her ministers. If her ministers advise to withhold assent that would be unprecedented in the modern era but in my eyes entirely constitutional.

    The Commons can override it too.
  • Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.

    Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.

    He can't. Royal assent is a formality. It is never denied. If Boris tried to drag the Queen into politics by asking her to refuse or delay assent to this bill he will, I am quite certain, be told where to go.
    That's not true. It was denied in 1707.

    Everything is a formality until it isn't.
  • It seems CycleFree has never heard the phrase "it's one law for them and another for us".

    :wink:

    I suspect that's a widely and increasingly held view.

    Just as trust in free markets took a permanent hit after the bankers were bailed out trust in politics, government, the rule of law is also in decline.

    And many people are quite happy about that as long as its 'people like us' who are benefiting.
  • Mr. Thompson, the PM does not have a veto right over the entire Palace of Westminster. He isn't a Roman consul. The Commons and Lords are not mere debating chambers awaiting the nod of approval of the Glorious Prime Minister for their words to be given meaning, or frustrated by the shaken head of denial.

    IIRC Roman consuls did not have the powers of veto but the tribunes of the plebs did.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Thompson, one might argue that the more than three centuries of not refusing Royal Assent constitutes a weightier precedent than the most recent instance you cite, which occurred within living memory of rule by Oliver Cromwell.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 4,323

    Mr. Thompson, the PM does not have a veto right over the entire Palace of Westminster. He isn't a Roman consul. The Commons and Lords are not mere debating chambers awaiting the nod of approval of the Glorious Prime Minister for their words to be given meaning, or frustrated by the shaken head of denial.

    IIRC Roman consuls did not have the powers of veto but the tribunes of the plebs did.
    And look what happened to the Brothers Gracchus.
  • Chris said:

    No, please just read it. The Commons have already been summoned to the Lords. They aren't sitting any more. There is royal assent (or not), then a speech, and then parliament is prorogued. There is no opportunity for an "urgent debate" in the House of Commons.

    As for MPs refusing to proceed with the ceremony, "and rightly so!", you've only just told us on the other thread that you think the government "should 100% refuse royal assent."

    How can anyone make sense of such drivel?

    Those two statements aren't contradictory.

    The government should refuse royal assent and then the Commons should urgently debate that and hold a VONC if the Commons wishes to do so.

    I see no reason to interrupt that debate with black rod and I think that would be considered unlawful. At the moment assent is refused Parliament will be sitting, it won't be prorogued yet. Unless this drama is resolved, whether through the courts or not, the Commons will refuse to be summonsed for prorogation.

    Let this be resolved democratically. Assent should be democratically given by HMQ on the advise of her ministers - if her ministers give advise the Commons considers bad then let the Commons resolve that.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Richard, not so.

    The consuls (certainly at one point) did have veto power.

    Tribune powers waxed and waned a bit, I think, and they did have a veto at certain points.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,014

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.

    Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.

    Is he monarch now ?
    He's better than the monarch, he's the Prime Minister. He exercises the monarchs royal prerogatives via his puppet the monarch.

    For as long as monarchists here want to keep up the constitutional monarchy pretence of having a so called democracy under a monarchy that is the only legitimate way to act.
    As usual, you are missing the point.
    The sovereign may not be challenged in the courts; ministers may.

    And in this case, would be.
    So be it. I have no problem with that, its not a missed point.

    Though there'd be no need for it to go to the courts if the Commons VONC Boris and soundings give another minister for HMQ to call.
    Yes, under our constitutional system it's an absurdity for there to be such a conflict between the Prime Minister and the Commons. This only occurs because of the FTPA and the antipathy towards Corbyn.

    We are in a desperate mess and trying to force through a no deal exit is making it worse.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,378
    rcs1000 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    PClipp said:

    Chris said:

    Boris Johnson being compared to Gandhi?
    Now I really have heard it all.

    Both sought independence for their country.
    But we are independent now. It is ABDPJohnson and the stupid Tories who want to subjugate us to Trump and the Americans.
    We're not independent now. Laws can be made in Brussels that nobody in this country voted for. That's not independence.

    Trump and the Americans is irrelevant BS. If Corbyn gets elected post-Brexit something tells me our government won't be close to the Americans.
    That's not quite true.

    The Commission implements directives, which we are treaty bound to implement into UK law. (Hence the xx% of UK law is made in Brussels.)

    The Brussel Parliament, AIUI, has no direct law making ability.

    "Ah ha! But that's the same thing, right?"

    Well, if that's the measure, then there's no country on earth that's independent (except maybe Bhutan), because there are lots of bodies whose directives where treaty bound to implement, under penalty of unlimited fine.

    The issue, really, is not that we're bound to implement policies from a foreign buearacracy, but simply that the breadth of the directives goes far beyond what we in the UK are comfortable with.
    What is the sanction if a country simply doesn't implement the directives into national law? Has it ever happened?
    It happens all the time. Indeed, there is a whole segment of EU law related to unimplemented directives, notably the Van Duyn ('74) and Ratti ('79) cases.

    The reality is that the only stick that the EU has to enforce compliance is monetary. If a member state does not implement the directive regarding the maximum organic compound of wire wool (a part of the broader directive on industrial emissions, 2010/75/EU), then it is possible that funding is reduced or withdrawn. This is clearly a much bigger stick for net beneficiaries than net contributors. Although, ironically, the Italians, the Hungarians, the Poles and the Greeks (all beneficiaries) have IIRC the most unimplemented directives.
    EU can whack member states with big fines also for each day a directive is not transposed, not just withhold money. Needs an ECJ decision I think.
  • Royal Veto last used by Tony Blair in 1999 to avoid a bill for a vote on Iraq War

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/15/ministers-exploited-royal-veto-legislation

    Wouldnt be surprised if this isnt seen on Monday.....
  • Mr. Thompson, one might argue that the more than three centuries of not refusing Royal Assent constitutes a weightier precedent than the most recent instance you cite, which occurred within living memory of rule by Oliver Cromwell.

    Perhaps but that 18th century precedent is more recent than a 17th century precedent cited by the Speaker.

    I would argue in three centuries there has been no reason for HMG to advise HMQ to refuse assent. This very bill is unprecedented so could result in unprecedented outcomes.

    What has been consistent all along for the last half a century at the very least is that HMQ acts at privy council on the advice of her ministers. If at privy council her ministers advise her to refuse consent then her overriding the advice of her ministers would be unprecedented.
  • glw said:

    The Conservative* Party having already given up being the party of business, and the party of sound finances, now appears to be about to dispense with being the party of law and order. What will they be left with other than being in favour of a crash-out Brexit?

    * Kippers in disguise.

    They gave up being the party of sound finances in the Cameron era.

    Which also saw them giving up being the party of strong defence, of increasing home ownership and of aspiration.

    But people are always willing to ignore inconvenient things when its 'their team' in charge but love to froth away when its someone else.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Thompson, we can agree that constitutional dickery begun by the Speaker whereby a convention means whatever he wants it to mean was not a good thing.

    Mr. Acres, is that royal prerogative a case of refusing (or advising the refusal of) assent, though?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,940
    Nestacres said:

    Royal Veto last used by Tony Blair in 1999 to avoid a bill for a vote on Iraq War

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/15/ministers-exploited-royal-veto-legislation

    Wouldnt be surprised if this isnt seen on Monday.....

    Nothing referred to ever got as far as passing all it's stages though. Or have I misread.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,791
    edited September 7
    Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,791
    Nestacres said:

    Royal Veto last used by Tony Blair in 1999 to avoid a bill for a vote on Iraq War

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/15/ministers-exploited-royal-veto-legislation

    Wouldnt be surprised if this isnt seen on Monday.....

    Welcome :)

    That was royal consent, which is required for parliament to consider bills concerning the veto. Similar, but not the same as royal assent.
  • Mr. Thompson, we can agree that constitutional dickery begun by the Speaker whereby a convention means whatever he wants it to mean was not a good thing.

    Mr. Acres, is that royal prerogative a case of refusing (or advising the refusal of) assent, though?

    Either royal prerogative is exercised on the advice of her ministers or it is not.

    If royal prerogative is exercised on the advice of ministers then simply ministers not seeking to exercise that particular prerogative for a long time doesn't mean they can't in the future.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 2,470
    Nestacres said:

    Royal Veto last used by Tony Blair in 1999 to avoid a bill for a vote on Iraq War

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/15/ministers-exploited-royal-veto-legislation

    Wouldnt be surprised if this isnt seen on Monday.....

    That was under Queens Consent not Royal Consent .

    The former is used to stop debate and not allow a Bill to move through its stages .
  • RobD said:

    Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.

    Parliament can change the PM if its not happy with the veto.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,213

    Chris said:

    No, please just read it. The Commons have already been summoned to the Lords. They aren't sitting any more. There is royal assent (or not), then a speech, and then parliament is prorogued. There is no opportunity for an "urgent debate" in the House of Commons.

    As for MPs refusing to proceed with the ceremony, "and rightly so!", you've only just told us on the other thread that you think the government "should 100% refuse royal assent."

    How can anyone make sense of such drivel?

    Those two statements aren't contradictory.

    The government should refuse royal assent and then the Commons should urgently debate that and hold a VONC if the Commons wishes to do so.

    I see no reason to interrupt that debate with black rod and I think that would be considered unlawful. At the moment assent is refused Parliament will be sitting, it won't be prorogued yet. Unless this drama is resolved, whether through the courts or not, the Commons will refuse to be summonsed for prorogation.
    I've just told you - the Commons will already have been summoned to the Lords. They will already be in the Lords. They will not be sitting any more.

    I wish I understood what people think they are achieving when they behave like this. Surely they can't believe they are influencing public opinion? Certainly they may disrupt the discussion and confuse a few people, but is that really sufficient reward for posting hundreds of comments here, day in and day out?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640
    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    PClipp said:

    Chris said:

    Boris Johnson being compared to Gandhi?
    Now I really have heard it all.

    Both sought independence for their country.
    But we are independent now. It is ABDPJohnson and the stupid Tories who want to subjugate us to Trump and the Americans.
    We're not independent now. Laws can be made in Brussels that nobody in this country voted for. That's not independence.

    Trump and the Americans is irrelevant BS. If Corbyn gets elected post-Brexit something tells me our government won't be close to the Americans.
    That's not quite true.

    The Commission implements directives, which we are treaty bound to implement into UK law. (Hence the xx% of UK law is made in Brussels.)

    The Brussel Parliament, AIUI, has no direct law making ability.

    "Ah ha! But that's the same thing, right?"

    Well, if that's the measure, then there's no country on earth that's independent (except maybe Bhutan), because there are lots of bodies whose directives where treaty bound to implement, under penalty of unlimited fine.

    The issue, really, is not that we're bound to implement policies from a foreign buearacracy, but simply that the breadth of the directives goes far beyond what we in the UK are comfortable with.
    What is the sanction if a country simply doesn't implement the directives into national law? Has it ever happened?
    It happens all the time. Indeed, there is a whole segment of EU law related to unimplemented directives, notably the Van Duyn ('74) and Ratti ('79) cases.

    The reality is that the only stick that the EU has to enforce compliance is monetary. If a member state does not implement the directive regarding the maximum organic compound of wire wool (a part of the broader directive on industrial emissions, 2010/75/EU), then it is possible that funding is reduced or withdrawn. This is clearly a much bigger stick for net beneficiaries than net contributors. Although, ironically, the Italians, the Hungarians, the Poles and the Greeks (all beneficiaries) have IIRC the most unimplemented directives.
    EU can whack member states with big fines also for each day a directive is not transposed, not just withhold money. Needs an ECJ decision I think.
    Well yes, but ultimately they only way to enforce a fine is to cut a country off from funding.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,791

    RobD said:

    Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.

    Parliament can change the PM if its not happy with the veto.
    How can it if it is prorogued minutes after assent is refused?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,014

    Nestacres said:

    Royal Veto last used by Tony Blair in 1999 to avoid a bill for a vote on Iraq War

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/15/ministers-exploited-royal-veto-legislation

    Wouldnt be surprised if this isnt seen on Monday.....

    Nothing referred to ever got as far as passing all it's stages though. Or have I misread.
    There appears to be Consent, which is at an earlier stage, and Assent which is after the Bill has passed both Houses.

    Bercow apparently overrode the need for Consent. Surprised that wasn't challenged in the courts after reading that Guardian article.
  • Mr. Richard, not so.

    The consuls (certainly at one point) did have veto power.

    Tribune powers waxed and waned a bit, I think, and they did have a veto at certain points.

    The tribunes certainly did have veto power in the late Republic, earlier on they would lead the plebs on secessions.

    It seems unlikely that the consuls had veto power in the late Republic otherwise, for example, Bibulus wouldn't have been forced to 'omen watch' in order to block fellow consul GJC.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,791
    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    PClipp said:

    Chris said:

    Boris Johnson being compared to Gandhi?
    Now I really have heard it all.

    Both sought independence for their country.
    But we are independent now. It is ABDPJohnson and the stupid Tories who want to subjugate us to Trump and the Americans.
    We're not independent now. Laws can be made in Brussels that nobody in this country voted for. That's not independence.

    Trump and the Americans is irrelevant BS. If Corbyn gets elected post-Brexit something tells me our government won't be close to the Americans.
    That's not quite true.

    The Commission implements directives, which we are treaty bound to implement into UK law. (Hence the xx% of UK law is made in Brussels.)

    The Brussel Parliament, AIUI, has no direct law making ability.

    "Ah ha! But that's the same thing, right?"

    Well, if that's the measure, then there's no country on earth that's independent (except maybe Bhutan), because there are lots of bodies whose directives where treaty bound to implement, under penalty of unlimited fine.

    The issue, really, is not that we're bound to implement policies from a foreign buearacracy, but simply that the breadth of the directives goes far beyond what we in the UK are comfortable with.
    What is the sanction if a country simply doesn't implement the directives into national law? Has it ever happened?
    It happens all the time. Indeed, there is a whole segment of EU law related to unimplemented directives, notably the Van Duyn ('74) and Ratti ('79) cases.

    The reality is that the only stick that the EU has to enforce compliance is monetary. If a member state does not implement the directive regarding the maximum organic compound of wire wool (a part of the broader directive on industrial emissions, 2010/75/EU), then it is possible that funding is reduced or withdrawn. This is clearly a much bigger stick for net beneficiaries than net contributors. Although, ironically, the Italians, the Hungarians, the Poles and the Greeks (all beneficiaries) have IIRC the most unimplemented directives.
    EU can whack member states with big fines also for each day a directive is not transposed, not just withhold money. Needs an ECJ decision I think.
    Well yes, but ultimately they only way to enforce a fine is to cut a country off from funding.
    Would they cut off our contributions to the budget, too? :p
  • Chris said:

    Chris said:

    No, please just read it. The Commons have already been summoned to the Lords. They aren't sitting any more. There is royal assent (or not), then a speech, and then parliament is prorogued. There is no opportunity for an "urgent debate" in the House of Commons.

    As for MPs refusing to proceed with the ceremony, "and rightly so!", you've only just told us on the other thread that you think the government "should 100% refuse royal assent."

    How can anyone make sense of such drivel?

    Those two statements aren't contradictory.

    The government should refuse royal assent and then the Commons should urgently debate that and hold a VONC if the Commons wishes to do so.

    I see no reason to interrupt that debate with black rod and I think that would be considered unlawful. At the moment assent is refused Parliament will be sitting, it won't be prorogued yet. Unless this drama is resolved, whether through the courts or not, the Commons will refuse to be summonsed for prorogation.
    I've just told you - the Commons will already have been summoned to the Lords. They will already be in the Lords. They will not be sitting any more.

    I wish I understood what people think they are achieving when they behave like this. Surely they can't believe they are influencing public opinion? Certainly they may disrupt the discussion and confuse a few people, but is that really sufficient reward for posting hundreds of comments here, day in and day out?
    Are they teleported? Is there some magic in the House of Commons I wasn't aware of?

    If they're summoned to the Lords they will be in the Commons not the Lords. If they're summoned then, I see no reason the Commons wouldn't say "no, we refuse to be summoned".

    Exercising the first veto in over 300 years would be controversial enough, I don't think it will be instantly followed by a prorogation order before the Commons has a chance to react.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,213
    edited September 7
    Superfluous.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 15,733
    RobD said:

    Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.

    It would be... But we've long gone past the point where Parliamentary conventions actually count for anything.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,791
    GIN1138 said:

    RobD said:

    Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.

    It would be... But we've long gone past the point where Parliamentary conventions actually count for anything.
    I dunno about you, but I quite like conventions, it's part of what being a Tory is all about.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.

    Parliament can change the PM if its not happy with the veto.
    How can it if it is prorogued minutes after assent is refused?
    If black rod came to summon the Commons minutes after assent is refused I think Speaker Bercow would shout out to lock the doors prior to the debate being concluded and refuse the summons. That's just not going to happen.
  • ah - looks like the 1999 bill was refused royal consent and never made it to second reading. However may there be scope for a legal challenge on the issue of Queens consent (which by googling appears to be something required if the bill required for international neogtiation)? I rememebr Bercow stating first thing that Queens consent was not required - how did he come to this decision and can it be chalenged as not following proper process? Just clutching at straws here....
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,213

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    No, please just read it. The Commons have already been summoned to the Lords. They aren't sitting any more. There is royal assent (or not), then a speech, and then parliament is prorogued. There is no opportunity for an "urgent debate" in the House of Commons.

    As for MPs refusing to proceed with the ceremony, "and rightly so!", you've only just told us on the other thread that you think the government "should 100% refuse royal assent."

    How can anyone make sense of such drivel?

    Those two statements aren't contradictory.

    The government should refuse royal assent and then the Commons should urgently debate that and hold a VONC if the Commons wishes to do so.

    I see no reason to interrupt that debate with black rod and I think that would be considered unlawful. At the moment assent is refused Parliament will be sitting, it won't be prorogued yet. Unless this drama is resolved, whether through the courts or not, the Commons will refuse to be summonsed for prorogation.
    I've just told you - the Commons will already have been summoned to the Lords. They will already be in the Lords. They will not be sitting any more.

    I wish I understood what people think they are achieving when they behave like this. Surely they can't believe they are influencing public opinion? Certainly they may disrupt the discussion and confuse a few people, but is that really sufficient reward for posting hundreds of comments here, day in and day out?
    Are they teleported? Is there some magic in the House of Commons I wasn't aware of?

    If they're summoned to the Lords they will be in the Commons not the Lords. If they're summoned then, I see no reason the Commons wouldn't say "no, we refuse to be summoned".
    I keep asking you to read the information I posted. Please do so, and stop wasting everybody's time.
  • Now THAT header is a proper tantrum lol.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 2,470
    As a Remainer I would have been disgusted if say the EU ref had been to stay and then the government tried to bring in the Euro by advising the Queen to refuse her consent to a Bill blocking that .

    Leavers have to realize that whilst you might think you can accept certain Johnson actions now because in your opinion the end goal is worth it what happens if you’re on the opposing side of the argument in the future on something different .

    The reason the HOL filibuster was dropped is because in the future that precedent would allow future Bills to go the same way when the government might be in opposition .

  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,791
    edited September 7

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.

    Parliament can change the PM if its not happy with the veto.
    How can it if it is prorogued minutes after assent is refused?
    If black rod came to summon the Commons minutes after assent is refused I think Speaker Bercow would shout out to lock the doors prior to the debate being concluded and refuse the summons. That's just not going to happen.
    If I remember previous prorogation ceremonies, the house of commons are standing inside the Lords as the commission is read and assent to acts is given. They'd have to run back in the commons and do god knows what to somehow prevent the parliament being prorogued. After the speech, the speaker doesn't resume his seat in his normal chair because the session is over.
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 457
    edited September 7
    This should be very simple for everyone. Our Parliament has passed a law. Whether we like it or not, it is the law. If you depart from that statement you’re saying you no longer believe in the rule of law.

    I’d be a little sympathetic if there were reason to suggest Parliament was acting ultra vires. But that’s not possible in our system - Parliament can do what it wants.

    I want to leave the EU. I now think we have to do this by leaving with no deal. I think Parliament has acted disgracefully. But we must follow the law. The comeuppance will or won’t come at the following election. I think it will, but only time will tell.
  • Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    No, please just read it. The Commons have already been summoned to the Lords. They aren't sitting any more. There is royal assent (or not), then a speech, and then parliament is prorogued. There is no opportunity for an "urgent debate" in the House of Commons.

    As for MPs refusing to proceed with the ceremony, "and rightly so!", you've only just told us on the other thread that you think the government "should 100% refuse royal assent."

    How can anyone make sense of such drivel?

    Those two statements aren't contradictory.

    The government should refuse royal assent and then the Commons should urgently debate that and hold a VONC if the Commons wishes to do so.

    I see no reason to interrupt that debate with black rod and I think that would be considered unlawful. At the moment assent is refused Parliament will be sitting, it won't be prorogued yet. Unless this drama is resolved, whether through the courts or not, the Commons will refuse to be summonsed for prorogation.
    I've just told you - the Commons will already have been summoned to the Lords. They will already be in the Lords. They will not be sitting any more.

    I wish I understood what people think they are achieving when they behave like this. Surely they can't believe they are influencing public opinion? Certainly they may disrupt the discussion and confuse a few people, but is that really sufficient reward for posting hundreds of comments here, day in and day out?
    Are they teleported? Is there some magic in the House of Commons I wasn't aware of?

    If they're summoned to the Lords they will be in the Commons not the Lords. If they're summoned then, I see no reason the Commons wouldn't say "no, we refuse to be summoned".
    I keep asking you to read the information I posted. Please do so, and stop wasting everybody's time.
    I did read it. At the time of the summons MPs will be physically sat in the Commons.

    If Bercow shouts to lock the doors on Black Rod and refuses to open them again and MPs simply continue with the debate then that is what they do.

    The Commons is independent of Black Rod. Every year the Commons slams the door on Black Rod's face to emphasise that. If Black Rod tried to override an urgent Commons debate they would just slam the door in his face and continue the debate. https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/black-rod/
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 6,337
    The various leaders will be getting a torrent of feedback from the doorsteps this weekend of course
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,791
    A previous prorogation ceremony for everyone's enjoyment:

  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.

    Parliament can change the PM if its not happy with the veto.
    How can it if it is prorogued minutes after assent is refused?
    If black rod came to summon the Commons minutes after assent is refused I think Speaker Bercow would shout out to lock the doors prior to the debate being concluded and refuse the summons. That's just not going to happen.
    If I remember previous prorogation ceremonies, the house of commons are standing inside the Lords as the commission is read and assent to acts is given. They'd have to run back in the commons and do god knows what to somehow prevent the parliament being prorogued. After the speech, the speaker doesn't resume his seat in his normal chair because the session is over.
    Why are the Commons standing inside the Lords? They're not normally are they. You've skipped some steps. How do you think they will get the MPs from the Commons to the Lords?
This discussion has been closed.