Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Let us consider a variation: "What exactly is wrong with suggestions that the PM would be breaking the law if he (as he has publicly stated he will) strangles to death in the House of Commons the next Conservative member who refuses to support a bill the government considers a matter of confidence."

Would it be prejudicial to the PM's presumption of innocence for his Attorney General to publicly state that, were he to do so, he would certainly be tried for murder? The Attorney General, (or Judge), could later recuse himself from this case if it went to trial.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Sep 12th, 2019 at 02:09:42 AM EST
In many states in the USA one making such a threat would be vulnerable to being charged with 'terroristic threatening'.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Sep 12th, 2019 at 02:13:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed - the central issue isn't guilt or innocence, it's whether the Executive is effectively above the law, because the judiciary can argue that any interaction between the Executive and the Monarch is constitutionally non-justiciable.

The latter line is in direct conflict with the sovereignty of Parliament.

You can't have both. Either Parliament is truly sovereign, or the Executive can shut it down on a whim by giving any old excuse to His or Her Maj.

One or the other has to go.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Sep 12th, 2019 at 12:18:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series