[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Flarelaine]

She has to agree. She dosnt get a choice in the matter by convention.

It is also convention that the PM has the backing of Parliament in whatever they ask the Queen to sign. Hell, the PM is PM because they have the backing of Parliament. And that is evidently not the case right now.

[Forogil]

Another company crashes to the ground with Brexitanica: T. Cook entered liquidation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46452374
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48292318

Tick Tock, Tick T. Cook

[Locklen]

Question: If bojo were to request another prorogation from the Queen, could she in theory withhold an immediate yes/no answer in the name of investigating the truth of the current request, given the court record of bojo lying previously; the point of this would be to minimize/avoid conflict with "convention". Also to allow the current parliament time to do what needs to be done.

[Northern Goblin]

In fairness if the advice she was given is found to illegal, it would be in her neutral postion to follow the courts of law, and not lend support to an illegal act by any one party the next time around.

Also late but a clarification, the opposition benches want a GE after this further extension to A50 has been sought, not after Brexit is fully resolved.

That would make no sense considering several opposition parties have manifesto pledges for the next GE on how they plan to resolve it.

[Omega10]

Ahahaha, I got most of it right!

- - - Updated - - -



Honestly, who knows if he really cares about any of this? It's basically just identity politics to him.

I swear you could just revoke article 50, but print "Brexit is a huge success!" in all the papers, and upload videos to Youtube of "crying lefties" and he'd be 100% satisfied.

What a grand idea

It wouldn't resolve the dysfunctionality of British politics, but it would at least be 1 less thing weighing them down.

[Monster Hunter]

It is also convention that the PM has the backing of Parliament in whatever they ask the Queen to sign. Hell, the PM is PM because they have the backing of Parliament. And that is evidently not the case right now.

PM dosnt and never has needed the backing of parliament for perogative powers. He only needs the backing of goverment To exercise perogative powers.

There's this silly notion going around the parliament is sovereign or people are sovereign, which is ludicrous, we are constitutional monarchy, the crown is sovereign legally but the crown divests its power in the different arms of our system to exercise.

To the court goes the crowns power to judge and punish.

To parliament goes the crowns power to make and amend law.

And to the goverment goes the rest, including poroging, making lord peers, starting wars (though there's a vote by convention), e.t.c

The goverment hasn't ever needed the backing of parliament to exercise the queen's powers, and that's been stated as such in legal cases, the brexit Bill case was all about if triggering art 50 was a perogative or legal power, and the current case is about if bojo deceived the monarch in his advise, the fact the goverment holds sole power to prorogue isn't in question and cannot be in question as Gina Millers legal team stated on day 1 in the first speech, they are not arguing that the goverment dosnt have that power, they are arguing bojo exercised it unlawfully by deceiving the queen as to his intentions. The defence is arguing that it dosnt matter if he did or what his intentions are as its the government's right and has been used politically before.

But ultimately the queen's neutrality is the highest convention and is never ever to be breached, the Queen acts entirly on the advise of her goverment nothing more, she's bound by that thanks to her great great ish grandfather.

[Monster Hunter]

Question: If bojo were to request another prorogation from the Queen, could she in theory withhold an immediate yes/no answer in the name of investigating the truth of the current request, given the court record of bojo lying previously; the point of this would be to minimize/avoid conflict with "convention". Also to allow the current parliament time to do what needs to be done.

Unfortunately no, the queen's perogative powers were vested in goverment, the queen's asent its ceremonial, she has to say yes to the pm exercising her power.

This strangely is one of the many reasons I've always argued for a stronger monarchy and stronger house of lords, people often jump in there saying bu bu bu muh democracy, to which I say bullshit, people are fucking stupid and would vote to jump of a cliff if some charismatic ass convinced them, democracy always needs a protection for the people from them selves.

Democracy is all well and good till the people vote for something stupid isn't it...

- - - Updated - - -

No one would start a war over that bunch of inbred Germans.

Monarchists are disproportionately old, stupid and suggestible as any one who has ever spoken to one will confirm.

Their existence depends entirely on a weird Stalinist flow of pro-royal propaganda.



No, idiot, you simply replace the word queen with elected president.



This bullshit argument essentially rests on the premise that tourists would stop coming here if we had an elected monarch rather than a hereditary one. Very obviously it would have no impact at all. Royalists try to conflate the idea of selling Buckingham palace to real estate developers with, y'know, having a fair system.

Why would we have a president. Looking across the sea shows how that system works out in practise, America is a fucking emberisment and not just recently.

Also I would start a war and I'm 29.
no one is touching my monarch unless they kill me first. And I'm far from the only one who thinks that way.

But as the monarchy system has majority approval in the UK I suggest you Jog on pinko because it isn't changing any time soon.

[Lynarii]

Unfortunately no, the queen's perogative powers were vested in goverment, the queen's asent its ceremonial, she has to say yes to the pm exercising her power.

This strangely is one of the many reasons I've always argued for a stronger monarchy and stronger house of lords, people often jump in there saying bu bu bu muh democracy, to which I say bullshit, people are fucking stupid and would vote to jump of a cliff if some charismatic ass convinced them, democracy always needs a protection for the people from them selves.

Democracy is all well and good till the people vote for something stupid isn't it...

- - - Updated - - -



Why would we have a president. Looking across the sea shows how that system works out in practise, America is a fucking emberisment and not just recently.

Also I would start a war and I'm 29.
no one is touching my monarch unless they kill me first. And I'm far from the only one who thinks that way.

But as the monarchy system has majority approval in the UK I suggest you Jog on pinko because it isn't changing any time soon.

Here's the thing. Queen Elizabeth II has power beyond convention and strict legal rules because she is The Queen. Not just any royal monarch, but through most of the world if someone mentions 'the queen' it can be fairly assumed they mean her, because she's been the monarch of an internationally relevant country for longer than the vast majority of humanity has been alive. She's generally respected at home, she's generally respected abroad, and as much of her power comes from who she is specifically as it does what her title is.

Her successor won't have all this. People don't have a lot against Prince Charles really, but he definitely does not command the same level of respect that his mother does. And that's always the problem with strengthening something like the monarchy. It sounds like a great idea, and probably IS a great idea, when the reigning monarch is good at their job. It goes south a generation or two later when you get one who isn't.

So could Queen Elizabeth II get away with defying convention and actually using her authority? She actually probably could, especially in a scenario where a large amount of the general population would support her action. But is it actually a good idea for her to do so? I don't believe so, it would fundamentally change the current relationship between the monarchy and the government, and that's something that could come back to haunt people later.

This is why I agree with those saying that 'convention' is a bad way to do government. If you want the monarch to use authority, you have to actually not only allow, but demand that they use that authority. If they are not supposed to be able to do something, it should be set down in writing (and law) that they can not. It doesn't matter exactly how the powers get split up, but it very much matters that everyone knows where the lines actually are and what happens if someone tries to cross them.

[Monster Hunter]

It would be quite easy to abolish if the media were not engaged in a continuous cycle of propaganda designed to manipulate the half-witted into accepting accepting what are essentially a useless bunch of German benefit scrounging racists, parasites and paedophiles on 30 million quids worth of housing benefit. This is why young people increasingly don't support the monarch, they get their information from social media rather than allowing themselves to be brainwashed by right-wing establishment drivel.

- - - Updated - - -



You have a ceremonial elected president or queen with no legislative powers as they do in Ireland.

So your going to argue the people are stupid and easily miss lead and at the same time argue for a more powerful elected person instead of the Queen.

Yea.... Keep talking pinko your doing more to promote the current system than any monarchist could.

[Monster Hunter]

Here's the thing. Queen Elizabeth II has power beyond convention and strict legal rules because she is The Queen. Not just any royal monarch, but through most of the world if someone mentions 'the queen' it can be fairly assumed they mean her, because she's been the monarch of an internationally relevant country for longer than the vast majority of humanity has been alive. She's generally respected at home, she's generally respected abroad, and as much of her power comes from who she is specifically as it does what her title is.

Her successor won't have all this. People don't have a lot against Prince Charles really, but he definitely does not command the same level of respect that his mother does. And that's always the problem with strengthening something like the monarchy. It sounds like a great idea, and probably IS a great idea, when the reigning monarch is good at their job. It goes south a generation or two later when you get one who isn't.

So could Queen Elizabeth II get away with defying convention and actually using her authority? She actually probably could, especially in a scenario where a large amount of the general population would support her action. But is it actually a good idea for her to do so? I don't believe so, it would fundamentally change the current relationship between the monarchy and the government, and that's something that could come back to haunt people later.

This is why I agree with those saying that 'convention' is a bad way to do government. If you want the monarch to use authority, you have to actually not only allow, but demand that they use that authority. If they are not supposed to be able to do something, it should be set down in writing (and law) that they can not. It doesn't matter exactly how the powers get split up, but it very much matters that everyone knows where the lines actually are and what happens if someone tries to cross them.

Problem is, legally the Queen is the law and isn't bound by laws, thus we bind the monarchy by convention.

The Queen can litteraly do what she wants, legally speaking. She's immune to prosecution for anything both civil and criminal. But by convention she does nothing to bring the crown into disrepute and expresses 100% political neutrality only acting on advice by goverment.

It's called advice but in reality it's an order from goverment.

Id argue that what we need to change is that simply advice means advice. And that the rest stays the same. Or we add in the the people or lords can also advise her majesty, so that the people could in theory petition her majisty to dissolve parliament or ignore the advise of the pm if enough sign the letter.

- - - Updated - - -

Er...dopey....ceremonial means just that. The Irish system, which you somehow seem to be ignorant of despite the fact we live next to them, has an elected president with no actual political power.

So you going to argue about removing one highly paid ceremonial position and replace it with a different highly paid ceremonial position....

Your a great one pinko, you must be a right laugh in the pub.

[Monster Hunter]

If you lived here you'd appreciate the newspapers determine Charles popularity at any given time. When he's pushing for some mildly socialist/green political measure privately they castigate him-but they only go so far because of the danger of undermining the monarchy altogether. This is why the "bypass Charles and go straight for William" attitude is pushed-it is essentially a threat to remove him from the process altogether unless he tows the line.

I can't overstate how stupid monarchists are generally. They behave like literal children. They are very easy for the media to manipulate.

At the current time it seems that the media can live with Charles so they will ensure the continued popularity of the Royals. The mechanism that may end that is the dwindling power of old and especially print media-currently there's no obvious digital replacement.

Ahh yes the big bad free press. Oh how they are such a pain to you pinko's, suppose that's why you take control of them first when ever your done with your revolutions.

For all your bluster it's ironic how much you have in common with the likes drumpf and bojo when it comes to the big scawy Media.

[Flarelaine]

PM dosnt and never has needed the backing of parliament for perogative powers.

But they need the backing of Parliament to be PM.

[dribbles]

Also I would start a war and I'm 29.
no one is touching my monarch unless they kill me first. And I'm far from the only one who thinks that way.

But as the monarchy system has majority approval in the UK I suggest you Jog on pinko because it isn't changing any time soon.

Would you feel the same about Queen Camilla? I'm not sure she will carry public opinion after Diana in the same way Lizzie has and still does, dangerous times are approaching for our monarchy when the man who talks to plants becomes King.

[Monster Hunter]

If you lived here you'd appreciate the newspapers determine Charles popularity at any given time. When he's pushing for some mildly socialist/green political measure privately they castigate him-but they only go so far because of the danger of undermining the monarchy altogether. This is why the "bypass Charles and go straight for William" attitude is pushed-it is essentially a threat to remove him from the process altogether unless he tows the line.

I can't overstate how stupid monarchists are generally. They behave like literal children. They are very easy for the media to manipulate.

At the current time it seems that the media can live with Charles so they will ensure the continued popularity of the Royals. The mechanism that may end that is the dwindling power of old and especially print media-currently there's no obvious digital replacement.

- - - Updated - - -



There is no need for it to be highly paid. You have one individual (no family) with no courtiers on a parliamentary salary. Again, this is how the Irish system works. Maybe spend less time talking and more learning. Y'know, so you don't humiliate yourself so much by exhibiting your ignorance of things which most educated adults in Britain already know.

Most adults know yet most people are slaves to your media buggy man and support the monarchy, try being Consistant pinky I know it's hard.

Only person who's looking a fool so fqr is you. You want to replace one ceremonial place for another so you can look more democratic without being more democratic and at the same time disparaging the very people that would get power in said democracy by saying there slaves the the media.

Any one with half a brain pinko knows where your going next with that... Gotta control that big bad free press.

[Monster Hunter]

But they need the backing of Parliament to be PM.

To be PM all you need is consent of the queen. Techinacly the queen could make me PM cos I can bake nice cakes.

In reality it's who ever holds a majority gets to go to the queen to ask and she always accepts, if they lose said majority, convention dictates there's a no confidence vote but they are still pm with all the governments power untill that happens. Its rare for us to have a minority goverment, and entirly an artifice of the opposition at this point. But its never been a voting matter on who's pm only a need to provide proof of a majority to become pm, after that it's up to Parliament to unseat pm's

[Monster Hunter]

I said "educated adults".

Ahh yes, the bastion of the ignorant. To call one's self educated. And those who agree educated. To cast disrepute on those who disagree.

Sorry to burst your bubble pinko but the anti-free press brigade isn't the one being considered educated at the moment.

[Monster Hunter]

Having an election is more democratic than having a hereditary monarch, yes. You'd save thirty million quid a year-money which would save a lot of lives.

But the people are all zombies to the media according to you.

Thirty million is penny's to the UK. We eat that in admin fees.

Get your story stright mate, either the people are stupid or the people are sovereign, it can't be both unless your a suicidal fool.

- - - Updated - - -

Would you feel the same about Queen Camilla? I'm not sure she will carry public opinion after Diana in the same way Lizzie has and still does, dangerous times are approaching for our monarchy when the man who talks to plants becomes King.

She's not allowed to be queen, only a concort like Philip. So she's a non issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah I'm sure Rupert Murdoch and Viscount Rothmere are really interested in a free press....the Sun and the Daily Mail are models of unbiased and objective news reporting.

Give me strength. You aren't actually a left-winger making dumb arguments to humiliate the right are you? You really do come across like a parody account

I'm some one more concerned with a raving pinko pontificating from the platform of hypocrisy.

Your line is "more power to the people you don't trust"

But do go on.

[draykorinee]

Quite glad Bojo prorogued, we haven't had any majorly embarrassing stories or gaffs for a few days, it was almost worth bypassing the democratic process.

[ranzino]

Quite glad Bojo prorogued, we haven't had any majorly embarrassing stories or gaffs for a few days, it was almost worth bypassing the democratic process.

tomorrow is the day the Supreme Court speaks, so enjoy the silence.
await the shitstorm around high noon, whatever the verdict will be.

[draykorinee]

tomorrow is the day the Supreme Court speaks, so enjoy the silence.
await the shitstorm around high noon, whatever the verdict will be.

Its going to be lit.