UK general election 2017

[Pann]

An act of parliament is not the justice system.
You are trying to interpret this strictly legalistically, where this is in fact a highly political question.
It does not matter if a Queens speech legally is an act of no confidence, because political convention dictates that it is.

Again political convention is that they are promulgated once a year, but there is (as far as i know) no legal requirement to have any at all - there are three left however, in the unlikely even this parliament serves its full five years.

Your first sentence makes no sense. An act is a bill that has been passed by the House of Commons and House of Lords and been given Royal Assent by the Monarch. It is the basis on which our laws are made.

Your second paragraph is saying nothing. There are well defined laws regarding a vote of no confidence. The Queen's Speech does not dictate a vote of no confidence no matter how you claim that it does.

Again you are saying nothing with the third paragraph. Why didn't you just admit that you had no point when first mentioned the Queen's Speech?

[Deleted]

Your first sentence makes no sense. An act is a bill that has been passed by the House of Commons and House of Lords and been given Royal Assent by the Monarch. It is the basis on which our laws are made.

but is not the justice system.
whatever, i forgot who i was talking to - Justice system in my context clearly referred to the courts.

The UK justice system courts would not in a million years touch the legality of this highly political question.

Happy?

Your second paragraph is saying nothing. There are well defined laws regarding a vote of no confidence. The Queen's Speech does not dictate a vote of no confidence no matter how you claim that it does.

Traditionally the queens speech is a vote of no confidence.
Every time it has been voted down, the PM has resigned.
It does not matter that there is no law that says that it is so, it is one by custom.

Again you are saying nothing with the third paragraph. Why didn't you just admit that you had no point when first mentioned the Queen's Speech?

Again, IT does not fucking matter that there is no fucking law that says a queens speech is a vote of no confidence, because tradition holds that it is a vote of confidence.
The very reason we cared about the vote at all was because a failure to deliver would have had consequences, if it was just a pointless formality, why did people give a shit?
The answer: IT does not fucking matter that there is no fucking law that says a queens speech is a vote of no confidence, because tradition holds that it is a vote of confidence.

[Deleted]

Seen people say if Sinn Fein take thier seats 'blah blah blah' on the last page. Almost ignoring the entire premise of Sinn Fein.

I find it funny how the left have only just discovered the DUP. Its because the NI arent considered British, they are just more Irish. Its pretty perverse. I dont understand the loyalists at all. Thier relationship to England is like that token black guy who joins the BNP.

[Pann]

but is not the justice system.
whatever, i forgot who i was talking to - Justice system in my context clearly referred to the courts.


Happy?




Traditionally the queens speech is a vote of no confidence.
Every time it has been voted down, the PM has resigned.
It does not matter that there is no law that says that it is so, it is one by custom.

Again, IT does not fucking matter that there is no fucking law that says a queens speech is a vote of no confidence, because tradition holds that it is a vote of confidence.
The very reason we cared about the vote at all was because a failure to deliver would have had consequences, if it was just a pointless formality, why did people give a shit?
The answer: IT does not fucking matter that there is no fucking law that says a queens speech is a vote of no confidence, because tradition holds that it is a vote of confidence.

Your context did not make any sense and nor would "An act of parliament is not the courts".

The courts would not touch the "legality of this highly political question" (as you put it) because the law is clear about what constitutes a vote of no confidence and the Queen's Speech does not. Although the UK are courts are perfectly able to handle highly political questions, such as the triggering of Article 50, so that point is also incorrect.

The law is clear the PM does not have to resign and of the five times, in parliament's history, that King's/Queen's Speeches were defeated, all of them were defeats on amendments to the motion and explicitly mentioned confidence. So it was a confidence motion, not the Queen's Speech, that was used to defeat the government. Thus you are incorrect when you state "Traditionally the queens speech is a vote of no confidence."

Woah, there is no need to get all shouty, sweary! It won't cover up the fact that you're wrong.

[Noradin]

An act of parliament is not the justice system.

People used to common law don't always know the difference between judiciary and legislative.

[Deleted]

Your context did not make any sense and nor would "An act of parliament is not the courts".

No that sentence makes perfect sense.
An act of parliament is not the courts.
A is not B, and A is demonstrably, not B.

The courts would not touch the "legality of this highly political question" (as you put it)

Because they wouldn't.

because the law is clear about what constitutes a vote of no confidence and the Queen's Speech does not.

Because again, it isn't a legal question.
The Queens speech is traditionally a vote of confidence.

Again, the legal reality does not matter, losing a budget vote or the queens speech would still politically constitute a vote of no confidence, regardless of the legalities.

[Pann]

No that sentence makes perfect sense.
An act of parliament is not the courts.
A is not B, and A is demonstrably, not B.

Because they wouldn't.

Because again, it isn't a legal question.
The Queens speech is traditionally a vote of confidence.

Again, the legal reality does not matter, losing a budget vote or the queens speech would still politically constitute a vote of no confidence, regardless of the legalities.

Of course it isn't. No-one said that it was. It does not make sense as a reply to "The UK justice system has already addressed this with various acts." and because it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have written. Essentially you are trying to twist what I have written.

They wouldn't touch it because it is not a legal question and the law is already clear on the subject.

Your first link says; "However the 2011 Fixed-Term Parliament Act (FTPA), brought in by the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition, changed things. It states that if a government loses a specifically worded vote of no confidence,..."

The second makes no mention of a confidence motion.

The third states; "The Fixed Term Parliament Act, introduced by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in 2011, set new rules on votes of no confidence.

Under the act, early elections can only be called if no alternative government is formed within 14 days of the motion of no confidence. "

The fourth; "Legally speaking, a failed Queen’s Speech vote doesn’t require Theresa May to resign. "

"We don’t really know what happens if the government were to lose the vote on the Queen’s Speech,"

and the last makes no mentions of the legalities but states that "It is seen as a critical test for the Government and failure to win the backing of a majority of MPs is seen as a vote of no confidence."

Did you read any of them?

Defeat on the budget or the Queen's Speech may lead to a confidence motion, as could many things, however they are not confidence votes and the government does not have to resign if either is defeated. As such you had no point when you first stated "Queen's speeches are good for a year, not five (even if they are skipping one now)."

Your whole argument is UK law says that I wrong but I am not wrong!. It is a laughable as it foolish! Anyway you are wrong and although watching you trying worm you out of admitting this is quite amusing for a while it gets really quite boring so I shall leave you to it and let you have the last word.

[Deleted]

Says who? Source? Hope you are not going to quote something just about quarter 1, but I have a feeling you will do just that. I am already laughing.

Oh please you people were crowing all the time about the piss-poor fractionally positive growth in the last few years every time a quarter was announced.

[Deleted]

Of course it isn't. No-one said that it was. It does not make sense as a reply to "The UK justice system has already addressed this with various acts." and because it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have written. Essentially you are trying to twist what I have written.

Nope, you replied to me.

The UK justice system would not in a million years touch the legality of this highly political question.
Parliamentary convention says the Queen's speech is a vote of no confidence, legality has no relevance.

The UK justice system has already addressed this with various acts. No it does not. The Queen's Speech could only be a vote of no confidence if a specific amendment relating to a lack of confidence was added, the FTPA requires a specific vote of no confidence.

I take it from this reply that you didn't actually have a point when you first mentioned the length of time each speech is valid for.

That's when i should have typed out courts, not that it isn't abundantly clear from context anyway.

As for the time i replied to you:

The UK justice system has already addressed this with various acts.

An act of parliament is not the justice system.

The justice system is more than the Laws.
An act of parliament is law, which constitutes a singular part of the whole system.
The whole system contains Lawyers, prosecutors, judges, constitutions and so forth.
The correct way to phrase that would have been:
Parliament has addressed that with various acts.

They wouldn't touch it because it is not a legal question and the law is already clear on the subject.

...
/facepalm

Your first link says; "However the 2011 Fixed-Term Parliament Act (FTPA), brought in by the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition, changed things. It states that if a government loses a specifically worded vote of no confidence,..."

Haddon said the “political reality” was that May would be under enormous political pressure to resign or would face an immediate vote of no confidence from Labour if the queen’s speech is defeated.

The second makes no mention of a confidence motion.

MPs from Northern Irish party the DUP respected the "confidence and supply" deal it reached with the Conservatives last week by siding with the government in all votes. Failure to pass the Queen's Speech would have represented a huge vote of no confidence in May and would likely have triggered yet another general election.

The third states; "The Fixed Term Parliament Act, introduced by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in 2011, set new rules on votes of no confidence.

Professor Patrick Dunleavy, from the London School of Economics (LSE), said that losing the Queen’s Speech vote is the equivalent of losing a vote of no confidence.

The fourth; "Legally speaking, a failed Queen’s Speech vote doesn’t require Theresa May to resign. "

Helps if you read the full quote.
Legally speaking, a failed Queen’s Speech vote doesn’t require Theresa May to resign. Rather, the issue is that the political pressure would be so overwhelming, especially right after her surprise losses in the election and the controversy over her government’s handling of the Grenfell Tower fire, that she would likely be forced to resign. If this happens, it’s anarchy.

Did you read any of them?

I read all of them, did you?

As such you had no point when you first stated "Queen's speeches are good for a year, not five (even if they are skipping one now)."

Yes i had a point, this important tradition is a yearly one, she still needs to pass three more of these formal votes.
Even with no issues cropping up, there are three queens speeches, a minimum of 8 brexit bills, as well as 9 budget votes remaining.
She has 20 can't lose votes left.

Your whole argument is UK law says that I wrong but I am not wrong!. It is a laughable as it foolish! Anyway you are wrong and although watching you trying worm you out of admitting this is quite amusing for a while it gets really quite boring so I shall leave you to it and let you have the last word.

I think we can agree you clearly can't read - i said from the very start that the legalities did not matter, because this is a political question.

As i said whether or not it legally qualifies as a trigger of the FTPA, it would be interpreted by everyone that it was a vote of no confidence.

[Shadowmelded]

Seen people say if Sinn Fein take thier seats 'blah blah blah' on the last page. Almost ignoring the entire premise of Sinn Fein.

I find it funny how the left have only just discovered the DUP. Its because the NI arent considered British, they are just more Irish. Its pretty perverse. I dont understand the loyalists at all. Thier relationship to England is like that token black guy who joins the BNP.

It's a weird one man. Even with all the experience that growing up and living in the West of Scotland and supporting one half of the old firm brings, it's hard to pinpoint. A lot of them are sincere though, they genuinely feel British despite it not always being reciprocal. I think they might be in for a bit of a shock now that the DUP will be in the headlines a fair bit. For others it's gratitude for defending them during the Troubles and for some it's just straight up bigotry masquerading as culture. The fraternal (Orange Order) aspect of it plays a big part too.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Seen people say if Sinn Fein take thier seats 'blah blah blah' on the last page. Almost ignoring the entire premise of Sinn Fein.

Yeah - it's a weird one. Sinn Fein and DUP have had barely any role to play in previous parliaments, suddenly they're the centre of attention.

Can't blame Sinn Fein for not taking their seats as part of a 'progressive alliance' and neither can you blame DUP for seeking to extract as much as they can from May.