The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
IMO a Conservative/Establishment stitch-up is perfectly believable.
The one upside is that British people - against all precedent and expectation - took to the streets to protest prorogation. I think that raised some eyebrows and made a stitch-up less likely.
But the one person who has embodied convention over the past 66 years is the Queen herself, to the point where, in the aftermath of Diana's death, her hidebound adherence to convention nearly destroyed the Monarchy itself. At the time her sycophantic admirer, one Tony Blair, had to take her firmly by her gloved hand and advise some concessions to popular sentiment where in her own interest, even if much to her discomfort.
What would happen if two former PM's, John Major and Tony Blair were to advise her, either privately or in public, that it was in her Majesty's interest to yield to the Will of Parliament and appoint an alternative PM? After all, she can only enter the House of Commons to deliver her Queen's Speech with the permission of the House of Commons, and it would not be unprecedented for her to be refused entry...
But the point stands: whose advice must she take if BoJo loses the confidence of the House of Commons? Index of Frank's Diaries
As to whose advice the Queen must take, the Privy Council is an obvious answer. But what form of the Privy Council? Who can influence this? Obviously, the PM, and the Lord High Snooty-Pants President of the Council. They would have to be prevented, by Parliamentary and public pressure, from pulling a fast one as at Balmoral. If Bozzer stayed on after a no-confidence vote, that would trigger an immense outcry. The Queen herself would have to understand that this was a deep constitutional crisis endangering the institution of the monarchy itself (which is said to be dear to her heart). She would have to tread carefully and consult more widely than with the quorum-of-3.
An article from The Guardian a month ago gives opposing expert views on her powers:
As the Queen's powers have been cited in the no-deal Brexit debate, constitutional experts are divided on whether she could intervene to dismiss Boris Johnson and invite a new prime minister to form a government should he lose a vote of no confidence
Doesn't offer much certainty. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
Unfortunately this does rather place need for fine discernment and huge responsibility on the shoulders of a 93-year-old.
Excellent argument in favour of a republic with an age ceiling for the president. That might help focus one's mind. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
I can't see Bliar or Thatcher angling for a job like that. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
My point would be that the Establishment has slid to the chaotic right.
Have I mentioned that if I regard Brexit as some sort of rebellion by the old aristocracy it makes more sense?
Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
Surely, historical precedent is that when a Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence, the Monarch consults the Leader of His/Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Is this done exclusively on the advice of the repudiated PM? Or is it, rather, the automatic option?
Can John Thomas of Pfeff Hall simply refuse to do the decent thing?
Is he not only above the law, but above the Monarch? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
The Queen would NOT be deciding the Brexit issue. She would, instead, be providing a way for the public and Parliament to chose. Likewise, a motion by Parliament to have the Queen send a letter on behalf of Parliament requesting an extension of the Article 50 deadline would probably be accepted by the EU. The very fact of such a letter would be irrefutable proof of profound change in the UK government from its current state and a way out of a stalemate for both the UK and the EU. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Democracy, she is slippery keep to the Fen Causeway
by IdiotSavant - Feb 28
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 28 1 comment
by Oui - Mar 4 6 comments
by Oui - Mar 1 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 23 19 comments
by Oui - Feb 22 29 comments
by Oui - Feb 25
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 20 30 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 6
by Oui - Mar 46 comments
by Oui - Mar 14 comments
by gmoke - Mar 1
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 281 comment
by Oui - Feb 2831 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2319 comments
by Oui - Feb 2229 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2030 comments
by Oui - Feb 2024 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1915 comments
by Oui - Feb 197 comments
by Oui - Feb 181 comment
by Oui - Feb 1795 comments
by Oui - Feb 168 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1523 comments
by gmoke - Feb 142 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1413 comments