Current Affairs Politics

Prorogued: UK Parliament Suspended Amidst “Coup” Outrage

While the decision by the Boris Johnson-led government in the United Kingdom to “prorogue” or suspend the parliament in Westminster for several weeks is not without precedent, and had been predicted for some time, yesterday’s announcement of a plan to prematurely end the current session of the legislature still managed to take many politicians and commentators in the UK by surprise. It was almost as if they had expected to thwart the controversial move by taking to the news media to debate and decry every aspect of the proposal over the last few months. However, under the guidance of the odious Jacob Rees-Mogg, the hard-right Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council, the hereditary head of state was persuaded to give her imprimatur to a temporary suspension of the parliament in a meeting bound up in arcane ceremony at the official residence of Queen Elizabeth II in Balmoral. (An event which underlines the archaic nature of Britain’s democracy and one of the factors that contributed towards the semi-populist anti-establishment referendum vote of 2016.)

The main Opposition parties in Britain have reacted with outrage at the forthcoming constitutional sleight-of-hand by the minority Conservative Party administration, even if some of the huffing and puffing is more akin to political theatre. That said the accusation that Johnson and his equally chauvinistic Cabinet colleagues are engaged in an executive “coup” to gain the upper hand over the legislature, all for the sake of Brexit, is going to be a hard one to shake. Certainly as far as the optics go the international press is already putting the British leadership in the same company as the authoritarian, rule-bending governments of Poland and Hungary. Unfortunately it appears that a sizeable number of pro-Brexit voters in the UK are quite content to be in that company if the new tactics adopted by Downing Street gets their country out of the European Union, come what may. And with the ironically-named Democratic Unionist Party rowing in behind their Tory allies, as the elected representatives of the DUP become more English than the English themselves, it seems that the British are determined to set sail into an entirely unpredictable future.

As the apocryphal Chinese curse goes, “May you live in interesting times.”

85 comments on “Prorogued: UK Parliament Suspended Amidst “Coup” Outrage

  1. terence patrick hewett

    Jacob Rees-Mogg “odious?” JRM is harmless: perhaps you don’t like his Catholicism? There’s nothing so Catholic as an English Catholic!

    As Douglas Ross Hyde first president of Ireland famously said:

    ‘The British are the people we love to hate and never cease to imitate.’

    • Enjoying watching the Brits tying themselves in knots, expect the riots to start in the next few weeks will make the Poll Tax riots look like a school picnic

    • He is an odious Prick, no one give a feck if he worships the pope, so what is your point?

    • The ruthless drive for Brexit is the British expression of the drive to the right by the ruling class worldwide.
      “Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament: The British ruling class declares war on democratic rights”
      https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/08/30/pers-a30.html

      • In the 2016 referendum 148 Labour constituencies voted to Leave the EU 84 Labour constituencies voted to Remain that means more Labour voters voted to Leave the EU than voted to Remain. These figures are from Google The dislike of the EU is as strong in Labour areas as it is in Conservative areas. The Labour party has no right to claim there is no mandate and that a full no deal Brexit is undemocratic

  2. Holy Moly!!!! You say suspending Parliament is “not without precedent”? You don’t have to go back to The Lord Protectorate or English Civil Warto find the precedent?

    What in their uncodified Constitution gives The PM power to shut down Parliament?

    • terence patrick hewett

      @Grace

      Unlike the dissolution of Parliament, which is governed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, proroguing Parliament is a Royal Prerogative power exercisable by the Queen, (who, by convention, follows the advice of the prime minister). It does not require the consent of MPs.

      The Canadian prime minister prorogued the Canadian Parliament in 2008 in order to delay a vote of no confidence in the Government.

      Queen Victoria prorogued Parliament in person regularly between 1837 and 1854, after which she ceased to attend, allegedly because she disliked the ceremony.

      In 1948, Labour Prime Minister Clement Atlee prorogued parliament to get around opposition to the Parliament Bill, which intended to limit the powers of the Lords.

      In 1997, Conservative Prime Minister John Major prorogued parliament 19 days before it would have been dissolved anyway to hold a General Election. Critics widely accused Major of misusing prorogation powers to avoid the publication of a damning report into Conservative MPs taking cash for questions.

      The government prorogues parliament pretty frequently — the term simply refers to the process of dissolving one session to make way for another. This normally happens on an annual basis or before a general election.

      • So the PM and/or The Queen can shut down Parliament whenever its convenient?

        This whole “It’s a Royal Power, but by convention The Queen follows the PM’s advice is pretty hinky in its own right.”

        All this power technically belongs to The Monarch but The PM actually excercises it…….it seems quite murky and ambiguous,

        Who exactly gives Canadian PM permission to prorogue Parliament.

        (Seems my grammar school teachers gave us a very distorted picture of this whole Constitutional Monarchy thing…..
        …..wonder how it will be when Prince Charles sits on the throne.)

        • terence patrick hewett

          In the grand abstract terms of the Enlightenment, the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the governed, and therefore no government has the right to hand over its authority to some external body which is not democratically accountable to its own people. So when the framers of the EU arranged for the nations of Europe to do exactly that, they were repudiating two centuries of political struggle for the rights and liberties of ordinary citizens and of governance “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

          There is a fundamental difference in the constitutional history of the United States, the United Kingdom and the history of the great continental powers. France has a Bonapartist tradition and Germany has a Bismarckian one. The Anglo-Saxon tradition is that of liberal democracy, hammered out in the United Kingdom after 1688 and the United States after 1776: the German philosopher is Hegel; the English is Locke. The British understand the American constitution, but we do not understand well the European constitutions. Nor do the Europeans understand or want the Anglo-Saxon concepts of liberal democracy. The European Union does not pretend to have a liberal constitution; perhaps the Lisbon treaty can best be described as an authoritarian federal bureaucracy seeking almost unlimited powers.

          • I think you have gotten some things mixed up.

            I know I find the Constitutions of France, Germany and even some of the Continental Constitutional Monarchies such as Norway a lot more intelligible than Britain’s Constitution.

            The US is a Trias Politica, which is a profoundly different set-up from a Constitutional Monarchy with “Parliamentary Sovereignty”. The main thing that was adopted from England in terms of the government is English Common Law as a basis for the judicial system in most jurisdictions-some use Napoleonic Code or a hybrid of English/Napoleonic. The current US Constitution is not just a continuation of The British Constitution put onto paper, sorry. In fact, a major consideration WAS trying to keep one such as Cromwell from coming to power.

            • David Mac

              Every single country on the planet has a written constitution, except New Zealand and the UK, and you can see why it is written…

              • I believe Israel is the main country outside The Commonwealth realms that aspires to be a Democracy yet lacks a written Constitution.

                Give the need for structure that the EU is no longer going to be able to provide, you could even argue they should have set-up a written Constitution and English Parliament along with plans for EU deal and the GFA that other parties would find agreeable before holding the referendum on Brexit.

        • terence patrick hewett

          In the grand abstract terms of the Enlightenment, the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the governed, and therefore no government should have the right to hand over its authority to some external body which is not democratically accountable to its own people. So when the framers of the EU arranged for the nations of Europe to do exactly that, they were repudiating two centuries of political struggle for the rights and liberties of ordinary citizens and of governance “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

          There is a fundamental difference in the constitutional history of the United States, the United Kingdom and the history of the great continental powers. France has a Bonapartist tradition and Germany has a Bismarckian one. The Anglo-Saxon tradition is that of liberal democracy, hammered out in the United Kingdom after 1688 and the United States after 1776: the German philosopher is Hegel; the English is Locke. The British understand the American constitution, but we do not understand well the European constitutions. Nor do the Europeans understand or want the Anglo-Saxon concepts of liberal democracy. The European Union does not pretend to have a liberal constitution; perhaps the Lisbon treaty can best be described as an authoritarian federal bureaucracy seeking almost unlimited powers.

          • Grace has pointed out how quite in contradiction to your interpretation the US, Britain and indeed many European states have three quite distinctly different approaches. Do the British understand the US Constitution? Well in what sense understand, find some commonality? I’m dubious. Not least given the US has a written constitution unlike the UK, has a very distinct seperation of powers, is a Republic, albeit one that is federal and uses a rather complicated system in order to elect an executive President rather than a PM (and by the by, that’s much closer to a continental system than the British one). And the idea that Europeans don’t understand liberal democracy is likewise very arguable.

            re the Lisbon Treaty, that’s far from the best description of it. Unlimited powers, an authoritarian federal bureaucracy? QMV, double majorities, a right to leave the EU, I could go on. Some may be good, some may be bad as I or you or others may view them, but none of these are close to what you suggest.

            • There actually is a group of Federal Presidential Republics with a strong separation of powers that ARE a lot line the US……namely the better of the Republics of North and South America. The more authoritarian ones have a lot more Presidential Power, while the better ones also show a highly define separation of powers much like The US.

              I see US Federalism (each state has it’s own Constitution, Elected Governor, Legislature and Judicial
              System with a State Supreme Court), and the ways political parties are set-up as another profound difference between The US and Britain.

              Other biggies include the fact that elected officials and judges can only be removed from office before the end of their term if they do something wrong or are clearly unfit….not because of votes of no confidence or falling
              out of favor with the party. That Congress can never be dissolved or prorogued. The President can call an emergency Session of Congress but the only time he gets a say in when and how long to adjourn it is a never-used right to settle a disagreement on the matter between The House and Senate “under extraordinary circumstances”. Presidents also can’t dispense with their cabinet members anywhere near as easily as The PM can, and The Vice President is the only one who is ever allowed to be a member of Congress and The President’s cabinet. Then you have the fact that The Constitution is not just written it is one of the hardest to Amend.

              Do British people understand The US Constitution? That varies quite a bit, in my experience. Americans almost always find comparing various written Constitutions much easier to understand-most view “Unwritten Constitution” as an oxymoron.

              I do find that many Britons buy into various claims about US government and politics that are simply incorrect. I’ve learned that if I hear a Briton complain about how the PM is “acting like a President” or “presenting in a Presidential manner”, to expect this person’s misconceptions about how The US government works to almost exceed what he knows let alone really understands.

            • Alan Gordon

              The UK is a constitutional monarchy. Will see how robust it is in the coming weeks, the boundaries are now in flux. These are the boundaries between monarch, ministers of the crown, parliament and the law judges (the judiciary).

              But this comment is to add to the conversation regarding democracy and the EU going on with Grace, Terence and Worldbystorm, in the main.

              If we cut through the Farage and brexit froth, blown over the EU in order to obscure, what we have is a treaty between the EU and the UK. This treaty, any treaty, brings with it obligations, rights and regulations. The ministers to the crown become the conduit for the flow of these obligations etc. back into the government due to the royal prerogative they hold. It is this royal prerogative, passed down from the monarch’s severed royal prerogative powers in 1689, that should be the receiver of undemocratic criticism, not the EU.

              These powers have been successfully challenged, in both the High Court and the Supreme Court challenge, by Gina Miller. Where as royal prerogative powers are normally exercised in treaties without challenge, the law court judges (a majority) deemed that the consequences and ramifications to the country were far too great for parliment to be excluded. There will be more constitutional tremors and quakes to come.

              If you find yourself lost it is always a good idea to work out how you arrived at that place. Westminster is in disarray and nobody is questioning how they got to where they are.

              • Norway is also a Constitutional Monarchy, but I find it quite easy to understand their system. Israel though no Monarchy has an uncodified Constitution, and it’s not even half as difficult to grasp as Britain’s.

                You might have to accept that most people who weren’t raised in Britain, The Commonwealth Realms, or in a country like Ireland that always watches Britain out of necessity are going to find The British system endlessly confusing.

                I’m wondering if some people raised with that system almost have a hard time seeing how confusing it all is to people raised into another style of govt-Democratic or not.

              • Alan Gordon

                That last paragraph, about being lost, was not some high handed, flippant dismissal of any of you. I’m concerned that Westminster is not questioning how it arrived to where it is. Although watching from a distance, it is not a safe distance.

  3. terence patrick hewett

    @ Grace

    The Brits are conducting a peaceful – so far – civil war: this is about power and who shall wield it.

    Labour MP Kate Osamor has threatened the Queen on Twitter by claiming the monarchy should be abolished after she approved Boris Johnson’s request to prorogue Parliament.

    The armed forces swear fealty to the monarch not the state and the oath is very specific:

    I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

    Charles I lost his head and so did Oliver Cromwell: after the Interregnum the English decided that a Republic was not really a good idea. The regicides were all dug up and posthumously executed at Tyburn and their heads put on a spike above Westminster Hall. Cromwell’s head was exhibited in a freak show for many years before being bought by his alma mater Sidney Sussex College Cambridge, where it resides to this day.

    The basis of the UK constitution is Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Court of Last Recourse is Parliament. However given that the European Court of Human Rights says: “no, the ECHR has primacy” does the UK have any sovereignty at all? Does the UK have any longer a Constitution? Does the principle of the alteration of the constitution by Act of Parliament remain valid? These inconsistencies are now being cruelly exposed.

    The UK constitution is complicated matrix of checks and balances between Monarch and State. Before any act of Parliament becomes law it must be passed by the House of Lords: they may cut up rough sometimes but they always in the end pass legislation even if it is amended. The HoL is a revising chamber. But before any act becomes law the Queen must sign it off: and she could in theory refuse to do this causing a constitutional crisis. Hence the importance of the army oath: any parliament which has been captured by nutters will encounter a lot of resistance.

    “Black Rod’s role at the State Opening of Parliament is one of the most well-known images of Parliament. Black Rod is sent from the Lords Chamber to the Commons Chamber to summon MPs to hear the Queen’s Speech. Traditionally the door of the Commons is slammed in Black Rod’s face to symbolise the Commons independence. He then bangs three times on the door with the rod. The door to the Commons Chamber is then opened and all MPs – talking loudly – follow Black Rod back to the Lords to hear the Queen’s Speech.”

    This is not just meaningless ritual it is symbolic of an agreement to coexist.

    • Well said and I believe all true. Its nice to see it here on a blatant IRA supporting site, someone should tell the Irish its how you do it without guns, Semtex or baseball bats with nails hammered into them to slowly and agonizingly murder a twenty year old boy.

      It may sound funny but its worked for a very long time and no one is murdered

      • Brits did a fair amount of murder and terror and genocide in Ireland you should invest in an Irish history book and get off your pulpit and look at your own bloody history of the empire as well

        • I must have imagined the anniversary of the Peterloo massacre only this very month. Or the multiple deaths of suffragettes a century later…and that’s just the one’s that come to mind immediately. The idea the British state across a very long time indeed didn’t utilise political violence is very naive.

          • The Peterloo case sort of proves that The UK has always been willing to dish out the same treatment to marginalized Englishmen as they did to their colonials-at least when convenient. Really Peterloo looks much like Amritsar, Bloody Sunday, Boston massacre…..In the Boston case of 1770 the large majority of victims were of English origin and culture even if the protest was led by a black man.

            As for the deaths of British suffragettes wasn’t that mostly hunger strikers? Was there not a woman who got run over by The King’s horse?

            • That’s true, though forced feeding counts as torture I think it is fair to say. But the broader point being that the supposed stability of the system is over rated as you say re Peterloo.

    • How can there be a peaceful Civil War? As far as I know, the only way is that it not be a real Civil War but only describe that way as an ironic joke, or total misnomer.

      Real Civil Wars are violent, bloody, horrific affairs. Nations are lucky to survive them in any livable conditions. I know of no country that had one under 300 years ago, that doesn’t still grapple with its legacy in some manner or another.

    • Cromwell wasn’t leading a real Republic, was he? He was basically a military dictator.

      • The British need another Cromwell because parliament is now a parliament of whores in it for the money Here is Richard Harris…As Cromwell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkAbOGxDF6g

        • Lovely! The first half of that scene reminded me just a bit of the famous, much parody scene in “Downfall” when The Fuhrer is shown throwing an epic tantrum.

          Another Cromwell? What was that you were saying about “teaching the Irish” to resolve things without killing? Cromwell killed more people than anyone you’ve criticized here.

          Would you also want this “next Cromwell” to behead Queen Elizabeth? Or Charles, William, Harry, Kate, Megan, Georgie, Charlotte, and the other HRH children? I for one, am pretty anti-monarchy in principle, but even I don’t see execution as a desirable end to the institution……not even for a class A dorkmeister like Prince Charles. Today wouldn’t be like in the past where any surviving member might be Royal Family could be declared an heir by various powers seeking to restore the throne.

          You REALLY don’t want a Civil War. Why are some people ignorant ad blithe enough to want one of those? Even the US Civil War killed over 10X as many Irishmen (by birth) alone as people of any nationality who died in anything related to Ireland’s political conflicts since The Great Famine.

          • Cromwell is still remembered for everything you’ve said plus kicking the whores out of parliament, altho calling MPs whores is an insult to all real whores who state a price and deliver as agreed. If parliament has got anywhere close to doing that in my lifetime I have yet to hear of it. Cromwell was of his time so its wrong to compare his actions in 1650’s to todays shower of bent MPs except to acknowledge that he dealt with the bent MPs of his time in exactly the same way they dealt with everyone. Puritans challenged the ruling Catholic church which was and still is as corrupt as any power hungry group of politicians

            • The majority are “real whores” live in situations a step and a half removed from debt peonage and slavery.

              Shutting down a legislature like that is pretty dictatorial at any time period. As much as the franchise at that time was restricted and only applied to The House of Commons, saying a strongman/leader can just close it all down is a flagrant power grab unless there’s a fast plan to elect a new one-even then such moves should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances. At this time Britain would if anything need Parliament opened early as an emergency session.

              Perhaps you can say 21st century standards can’t apply to regicide or Cromwell’s ISIS like fanaticism. However the man’s bloodlust and pride in running such a bloody Civil War in England and a worse invasion of Ireland, would be extreme at any time period.

              I don’t know of any time when closing down a Parliament, Assembly, Diet, Congress, Senate or whatever didn’t have some connotations of “power grab”.

              • In fact proroguing parliament is a normal event. This time it is happening at the end of MPs jollies so only a week is prorogued

            • Proroguing Parliament looks like a pretty archane old rule that should have been gotten rid of when Prince Albert still lived.

              If you wanted to call a new emergency election that might be another matter, in principle.

              In practice however Parliament can ill afford to lose 48 hours let alone a week. If anything they ought be in Emergency Session.

              By wishing for a new Cromwell do you actually mean that, or just trying to be provocative?

              At this point England risks food shortage or maybe a Civil War.

              Be careful what you wish for…….even as a joke.

              • Possibly,. The people no longer believe a word any politician says, three million women have had their pensions stolen by the UK govt and working class people have dropped to the bottom of every benefit including housing, then there’s the betrayal of Brexit and the open contempt MPs have shown for the British electorate. So yes civil war is a possibility recently the UK govt has been trying to make diversifying the British army sound attractive, their problem is the British military have always been diversified and the many different cultures involved are probably loyal to the queen and the British military swear allegiance to the monarchy not the UK govt. We live in interesting times

        • Peter Dorley

          Do not really care what the English want, Ireland wants its country back

          • Then you know exactly how the English feel they want their country back and whilst obviously less violent than the Irish are determined to get it

            • May I remind you that when The British people voted to join the EU in the 1970’s the “joiners” won the popular vote by quite a landslide-much wider margin than the Brexit leavers.

              While The EU has changed since then and it’s not much of a democracy if you don’t get to change your mind, having voted to join was an important point.

              First off since it was the older generation that typically supported Brexit, you can assume that of those who got to participate in both referendum many simply had a different opinion years later.

              Secondly, those who voted to leave should have been more prepared for all it would realistically entail. The idea that there would be all this extra money for the NHS and few entailments and nothing about the need to accommodate the GFA, was piss poor planning from the get-go.

              Thirdly there is zero equivalence between Brexit and the Independence of ANY of your former colonies (Scotland is a different topic). None of your colonials had the representation in your Parliament that you did in the EU.

              And from The Boston massacre to Amritsar, the British armed forces had a long record of getting violent with colonials in a way the EU never did with Britons-even in the case of India’s nonviolent Revolution.

              The EU was willing to deal with your vote to leave. Scotland has been the only country to get any such deal from The British Empire.

              • In the 70s the British voted to join the Common Market not the EU and actually you do get to change your mind that is democracy
                Almost certainly the Brits care much more for the NHS than they do or ever have cared for the GFA

                Zero equivalence between Ireland and Scotland wanting to leave the UK? The one thing all three have in common is they have to vote to leave the UK in the same way the British have voted to leave the EU

                You’re right when democracy hardly existed and was in any event relatively new no former colonies had a vote that the British people didn’t have.

                All armies have a reputation for violence that’s the very reason for armies The British were no better or worse than any other empire they were simply the last.

                The EU was willing to deal with the British decision to leave the EU? Yes I suppose they must have felt pleased with themselves to have got Theresa May to accept a deal which would have made the British worse off than if they had never left the EU, they don’t seem to be so eager to do a deal now. We shall see

            • Whether Brexiteers care about the GFA or not, the fact is that Britain agreed to it. So upon leaving the EU, there should have been a workable plan to accommodate the GFA. Not to mention the Common Market-and preferably the people should have had some idea of what such a plan would entail BEFORE the Referendum was held.

              Not just Ireland but ALL former British colonies had a vastly different situation with Brexit. Britain voted to join, had representative in the EU Parliament, and the EU hasn’t shot any Brits in the street for wanting to leave…….all the EU asked of you was to honor your own agreements with Ireland, and respect the EU project of the whole. Britain’s former colonies were denied that level of courtesy even when the people made it clear they WANTED OUT, of The British Empire.

              Whether that made Britain worse than say the French Empire or not, the fact remains……compare your desire to leave The EU with Ireland’s or any other colony’s to leave The British Empire and it just makes you bad.

              • I’ve already said I regard Scotland leaving the UK as a happy event. The English people did not benefit from the empire while American slaves were working hard in cotton fields free English children were sweeping chimneys, working in factories, down mines etc. All the jobs were dangerous.

                Independence is something the Irish don’t seem to understand. The GFA is based on a nod and a wink not a formal patrolling of the border between north and south Tony Blair is just another professional liar. IF John Major had continued the GFA negotiations the result would almost certainly have been better and safer for everyone. For the EU to use the border to try to further enslave the Brits is an indication of their contempt for democracy and the lives of Irish people regardless of their political and religious beliefs.

                No, the Irish contempt for history is the biggest problem these islands have.and the EU has already shown its both its contempt for national agreements and its indifference to Irish bankruptcy.

                Is the debt Ireland owed the EU paid yet? Just a thought…/

            • Suggesting your average Englishman didn’t necessarily benefit from The British Empire has got to be the most anemic defense of The British Empire, I’ve ever heard. That just says that not much good came of The British Empire for most of the people anywhere. If most Englishmen weren’t better off because of Trevelyan’s policies during The Great Famine, that hardly defends doing nothing while a quarter of the people starved or ended up as refugees

              The fact is that nations largely wanted out of The British Empire for reasons that are quite removed from Brexit.

              • Go forth and multiply Grace I have had enough of this post and as usual the Irish and their supporters distort facts and invent attitudes It never changes. Ireland has to get its mouth off the English teat end of.

          • “The EU was willing to deal with the British decision to leave the EU? Yes I suppose they must have felt pleased with themselves to have got Theresa May to accept a deal which would have made the British worse off than if they had never left the EU, they don’t seem to be so eager to do a deal now. We shall see”

            That’s completely absurd. Of course the UK is going to be worse off than if it never left the EU. That was a given the moment it decided to follow through on the vote. It’s so simple I’m amazed I have to restate this. The EU is the closes trading bloc to the UK. It is its largest single trading partner and it is geographically proximate. Through membership of the CU and the SM it benefits due to the removal fo tariff and non-tariff barriers, speed of movement of goods, etc, etc. The instant it leaves the CU and the SM those barriers go up. That’s just a fact, it’s nothing to do with the EU punishing anyone, it’s how trade works between states. So the UK is from the moment it leaves those entities ‘worse off’. There’s nothing that can be done in that regard. Non-EU membership is, in relation to the EU a worse position than EU membership for trade etc.

            It’s literally nothing to do with the WA which for all its flaws and contradictions was at least a reasonably good effort at forging some sort of relationship (and with much yet to be developed in further negotiation, something conveniently forgotten by hard Brexiters) which was lesser than EU membership, lesser than EEA/EFTA membership but a bit better than Canada style relations. The UK was still outside the CU and the SM (unlike the entirely sovereign Norway which is outside the CU but inside the SM or actually to be correct has access to much of but not all the SM).

            But even by your own logic how could a no-deal be better than the WA? In no-deal the UK is entirely without a relationship to the EU. So for all your empty complaints about the EU ‘being pleased’ etc, you’re actually arguing for a worse situation again. That makes literally no sense.

  4. @terence patrick hewett – frankly speaking, people have had enough of this mumble-jumble because the rituals signify nothing

  5. How quickly Johnson proceeded through the stages of ruling proroguing out, denying he was seeking legal advice on it, indignant at being called a liar, then going ahead and doing it. Truly an English Trump.

    I guess we should expect more parliamentary chicanery to consume the legislative timetable and plan for no deal, as the Johnson cabal is clearly working to achieve that end.

    • I doubt it was quick. Rees Mogg was chosen for good reason and so far has arrogant Bercow and his arrogant lying accomplices beaten Brexit is what the British want failure to deliver a full, real no deals Brexit will destroy the Conservative Party

      • The sequence of events I outlined transpired before our very eyes over the course of a week. That’s quick by anyone’s standard.

        Never mind the Tories, Brexit destroying the UK is the big news.

        • If you believe Boris Johnson or indeed any other leader just goes in blind with no plan you are to say the least wrong.

          Brexit wont destroy the UK but who knows after the way Ireland has behaved – again Brexit could destroy Ireland.

          • Johnson’s plan is clearly a no deal, crash out on Oíche Samhain.

            Which will deliver overnight majorities in Scotland & Northern Ireland for independence & re-unification respectively. Polling has been crystal clear on those points for some time. You may not call it destruction, but it sure isn’t unscathed.

            Will you stay in an UI/EU or relocate to what’s left of the UK?

            • I would call such a happy event About Time, but I’m not convinced it would happen England and Wales are entitled to more than whining Scots and murderous Irish. I hope if they do go for independence they stay in the EU. Scotland would lose thousands of Brits govt jobs and the Irish would be killing each other As long as no one tries to grab money off the English and Welsh in the name of, ahem, compensation It would be a wonderful bonus to Brexit

              • That’s Unionism for you.

              • This version of the United Kingdom has only existed since the 1800s As I understand it Scotland CHOSE to join the UK because Scotland was bankrupt. Not surprising Scotland only started whining about independence when oil was discovered too bad its said to be running out now and Scotland may have to dig deep into EU pockets they’ll like that

              • LOL! Without the British state to arm the British in Ireland I’m not sure which Irish would be “killing each other”!

              • What you’re saying is the IRA would continue to get their loot from robbery, extortion and brain dead Irish Americans whilst loyalists would be left with no form of legal financing. How fortunate there is only one Tony Blair and the IRAs choice of banks to rob is subsequently limited.If the IRA refuse to keep to the GFA thousands of protestant and loyalist people will be put at risk of further violence even as they are disarmed. Typical

              • We went through al this with the Unionist Remoaners in 1922. This time will be no different. All talk, but once the pubs open the protests end. Drumcree broke Unionism, the “Fleg” protests were laughable, and Bryson is no Paisley.

                Re-unification will come so quickly after a no deal Brexit that it will be Union Jack down, Tricolour up.

                The only chance NI has is if Johnson shafts the DUP and goes for NI only backstop. The irony.

              • How exactly did you end up with such a negative view of Irish people if you know that you have some Irish blood of your own?

                What is this?

              • I moved to Mayo about half an hour from Ballina

          • Ye Gods, even the name of the flag is nicked. If Ireland cant/wont share Christianity I can hardly wait to see what happens when Islam stretches its claws and it will

          • Scotland in 1707 was not a democracy – so the idea that ‘Scotland’ ‘chose’ to join Britain in any meaningful way is an absurdity.

            • Oh, how observant of you by the way was any country a democracy in 1707 England wasn’t nor was Wales, Ireland or any other European country. The vote was given reluctantly and promoted as giving the people ownership of their country and choice but as we can all see now that was never true.

              • What has happen in this case is that a razor thin majority of Britons who voted in the Referendum in 2016, made a choice that they weren’t prepared to take any responsibility for. They had no realistic concept of what leaving the EU would actually entail.

          • But pippakin, you’re a smart person so I know you understand full well that arguing that 1707 represented the will of the Scottish is an absurdity given there was no means of expressing that will. So therefore making an argument based on that proposition that it was the will of the Scottish, a ‘choice’ no less, is equally an absurdity. So why waste your time and others making arguments that from the very off don’t hold up to even the most cursory examination?

            And +1 to Grace too, that’s an excellent summation of the reality – and add in that the idea a ‘no-deal’ Brexit was the Platonic ideal of Brexit is something that only developed post-Brexit and actually well post-Brexit. Those who rightly or wrongly argued for Brexit certainly didn’t have that on the bill of fare from the off. One thing that amuses me is the idea that everyone is actually dead set against Brexit or is a Remainer. Sure, I’d have preferred the UK to remain within the EU, but the history of UK involvement in the last thirty odd years has been one of semi-detached membership pushing a liberal (economic sense) line that has deeply damaged a social EU. But I’ve no problem with the UK leaving in whole, part or taking on another status such as EEA/EFTA (as EUREFERENDUM.COM has long argued well before the Johnny come lately Brexiteers got into the game) as long as. – and this is the crucial bit – this island I live on and the dispensation on it is not affected or impacted upon. And it is telling that this island wasn’t factored in at all in any real sense in the Brexit process by those arguing in favour of it. But again, even the most cursory analysis, suggested that at a minimum a no-deal Brexit would be deeply injurious to the dispensation here. Which means that something distinct from that was necessary (and that could take many forms including some sort of special status for NI which in any event already has.special status within the UK).

            • You’re right about one thing and wrong about everything else. The English don’t care about the Irish, most of them think its about time the Irish in Ireland stopandped lying, developed their own country and grew up.

              I’ve never said the Scots had a say in joining the UK but the English Irish and Welsh had no say either.

              For the rest many Brexiteers had to wait decades for a chance to correct the mistake made because liar politicians and the fake news media lied about the Common Market, that and knowing there is unlikely to be another referendum in the UK for decades possibly centuries is why Brexit is so important and why Brexit voters will not allow UK MPs, the fake news media and the corrupt Irish and EU to browbeat them

              • That’s a pretty crummy argument. It is like those people who dismiss suffragettes or Civil Rights activist because “the vote was fairly new for Protestant white men”.

          • ” As I understand it Scotland CHOSE to join the UK because Scotland was bankrupt. Not surprising Scotland only started whining about independence when oil was discovered too bad its said to be running out now and Scotland may have to dig deep into EU pockets they’ll like that”

            That clearly implies that the Scottish had a say.

            RE the EEC, did you ever bother to actually read the EEC Treaty? It’s practically in the first line:

            “- determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe,
            resolved to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,
            affirming as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvements of the living and working conditions of their peoples,
            – recognising that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition;
            – anxious to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less-favoured regions;
            – desiring to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade;
            – intending to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
            – resolved by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts…”.”

            “The English don’t care about the Irish, most of them think its about time the Irish in Ireland stopandped lying, developed their own country and grew up.”

            I was born in England, my mother and her family are from Birmingham with not a drop of Irish blood in them – she was Cof E and converted to RC in the 60s when she married my father (the not exactly joke in the family is he promptly converted to atheism). I’ve cousins and second cousins and family across the UK, a brother lives with his children and partner in the South of England, personally I’m an anglophile, having lived in the UK for an extended period of time and am proud of many if not quite all aspects of that side of my heritage even if my primary identification is as Irish and while I’d never presume to speak for all English – and wouldn’t want to either, I really find it funny to hear others pretend they speak for all English (or Irish come to think of it). Don’t think you do a convincing job trying to do that either. ‘Most English think. it’s about time the Irish…’ – my ass.

            • I was born in London my mother was Irish, father English I have family in the north and south of Ireland and all over England and Wales

              I don’t speak for the English I assume everyone knows that people who write blogs and comment on them have neither the right nor the inclination to speak for anyone but themselves.

              I am irritated by the hypocrisy of the Irish every time they say ‘the Irish had no vote’ they conveniently forget to mention the English, Scottish and Welsh had no vote either.

              Democracy is relatively new and already its hanging by a thread. People in every EU country are expected to obey without question every whim of unelected EU bureaucrats and that is undemocratic as is the EU reaction to any country that chooses to leave the EU

              Honestly I’ve had enough of this post it goes nowhere

              • “I don’t speak for the English I assume everyone knows that people who write blogs and comment on them have neither the right nor the inclination to speak for anyone but themselves.”

                Except you do speak for the English. Every comment where you say stuff like “The English don’t care about the Irish, most of them think its about time the Irish in Ireland stopandped lying, developed their own country and grew up.”

                Who else are you speaking for? You’re making unsupported generalisations about the population of England. That’s not you saying ‘I think’ it is you saying ‘The English think/don’t care/whatever’. Surely you see the distinction?

                What hypocrisy? It’s a perfectly legitimate statement – Northern Ireland is sui generis within the UK – the basic population imbalance is such that a vote across the UK cuts across democracy within it. But even putting that aside there was no care or consideration given to the Irish and/or those within NI or the GFA/BA at the time of the referendum – as is evidenced by all that has come since. Any vote on the relationship between the UK and the EU that didn’t take into account that relationship was flawed from the of. I’ve no problem with Britain sailing off into the sunset away from the EU, though I think that it is going to skewer Scotland and probably bring independence closer. I do have a problem when Britain pretends that NI is the same as Britain or that the situation on this island I’m on is irrelevant or has no part in this.

                The stuff about EU bureaucracy is frankly unconvincing. I’m no starry eyed idealist as per the EU. I don’t want a federal EU, I see the areas that need reform etc. You’ve raised a whole heap of issues above in other comments on poverty and policy that were and remain and would remain within the competency of the UK government. It’s easy to blame ‘unelected’ bureaucrats and not your own elected politicians who have used the EU as an excuse for their own failings for decades now. At some point personal political responsibility has to play a part, doesn’t it?

                BTW snap on London, born there.

              • You obviously forget the comparison. The fact is that British people DID by and large vote to join The European project. And The EU did plan to honor Britain’s choice to leave it…….they just wanted a deal that considers all the water under the bridge since you joined.

                Here’s what you don’t get about independence, or major charges within. “Constitutions predate Revolutions”. When the North American colonies wanted out of The British Empire, most of them had written state Constitutions (some of which are still in effect today) long before The War of Independence was over, and some had them even before The Declaration of Independence was written. The plan to hold a Constitutional Convention soon after the war was decided in the beginning. Most of those that were free states by The Civil War, at least started phasing out slavery before The Constitutional Convention when the current one was written, and Pennsylvania did so before Washington fully defeated Cornwallis at Yorktown.

                Similarly your other other colonies on leaving had their own plans, ideals, and ideas about what they were going to do once independence. The Indian Congress party was already planning on hydroelectric dams to get India out of poverty and debating on the scope of state economic planning, as well how state and the national govt would interface long before even Gandhi became a key figure in their independence movement.

                In some ways I would argue the Ireland’s plans for independence did suffer from a little too much idealism (a somewhat retro idealism for the 1920’s), but the inescapable fact was that Britain’s track record in governing Ireland was terrible.

                Number one problem with Brexit? Nothing was planned in advanced. Even the question of whether the NHS would actually going to get Britain’s EU dues was more a vague promise than actual plan.

                If The English did push more for an English Parliament, a Republic a written constitution, or any number of other things, I can guarantee that most anti-colonialists wouldn’t demean those idea at all-not even if you opted for the most over-the-top celebration of the anniversary on the planet. Few anti-colonialists make fun of the NHS either. Which should be your big clue.

                Maybe what you should have done is set-up an English Parliament or a written Constitution BEFORE even having the debate on the EU or planning if and how to leave it.

          • “If The English did push more for an English Parliament, a Republic a written constitution, or any number of other things, I can guarantee that most anti-colonialists wouldn’t demean those idea at all-not even if you opted for the most over-the-top celebration of the anniversary on the planet. Few anti-colonialists make fun of the NHS either. Which should be your big clue.
            Maybe what you should have done is set-up an English Parliament or a written Constitution BEFORE even having the debate on the EU or planning if and how to leave it.”

            +1

  6. The Financial Times Newspaper has come out for a National Unity Government under Jeremy Corbyn.

  7. Well Boris was born in a Republic maybe by his recent political power grab he is going to make sure he dies in one as well.

  8. Jacob the Liar who believes the Pope is infallible just made Lizzie Windsor look very fallible in the eyes of about 50% of her subjects.

  9. Alan Gordon

    A few weeks ago there was a call for an urgent judicial review, in Scotland. This review started this morning and will continue to look at the legitimacy of the Queen’s prorogation of parliament, from scots law. Under Scots law, the claim of rights, which the queen has to acknowledge each year, does not see anybody above the law. Everyone pope to king or queen is human therefore fallible. Now, if it can be argued that the call to prorogue parliament was to circumvent parliament, to allow an action which would harm the people of Scotland, ie no deal brexit, then the queen acted unlawfully.
    What happens next? Who knows but we are saving a fortune on campaigning for independence.

    • Whatever the legalities of it, how can this do anything, but paralyze Parliament???

      If anything this would warrant emergency debates.

      • Alan Gordon

        Prorogation allows Johnson to tick several boxes. If he was denied the prorogation I think it will place a no deal as more likely. Denied the time lever to “force a rabbit out the hat” (May’s Irish Sea border deal) he would have to take on the Brexit Party, a No Deal Leave in the manifesto is all that will beat them off.

    • Application dismissed in Scottish courts.

      • Alan Gordon

        Not dismissed, “refuse interim orders at this stage”, the court session will hear full arguments next week and Boris Johnson to lodge an affidavit sworn on oath with the reasons prorogation.

  10. John Major joining legal action against Boris Johnston must be a first a former Prime Minister suing a sitting Prime Minister.

  11. Alan Gordon

    Not dismissed, “refuse interim orders at this stage”, the court session will hear full arguments next week and Boris Johnson to lodge an affidavit sworn on oath with the reasons prorogation.

  12. Alan Gordon

    Sorry for the duplicate post, wordpress seemed to throw another wobbly.

  13. I wonder if Raymond McCords attempt to stop suspension is successful it will go down in England among the Brexiteers.

  14. Micheal Gove says on the Andrew Marr show people will get the food that they need. So not the food that they want. So prepare yourself for food shortages if Boris and his pals manage to crash the UK out of the EU at the end of October.

Leave A Comment (Please familiarise yourself with the ASF Terms of Use and Commenting Policy before posting a comment)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: