The Prisoner of No. 10 | 200 comments (200 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Prisoner in the Tower? (none / 0)

No, the joy of the unwritten Constitution is that the Executive rule in loco Regina, which means they can do what they want whenever they want.

After all, the only check is precedent, which is really just saying your boundaries are set by your willingns to play fast and loose with the "rules". But for the products of Eton, rules, regulations and laws are just for little people. Wheras the sone of privilege are entitled to seize the day by any means necessary, Britannia waives the rules etc etc [vague blathering
about the empire on which the sun never sets mumble mumble....decays into incoherence]

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sat Sep 7th, 2019 at 04:38:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Prisoners in the Tower? (none / 0)

I don't know about that.

Only a figurative minute ago in this and other threaders readers here contemplated rationales for an intervention by the infirm monarch in selection of a prime minister for ahh "her government"...

as if estranged from parliament ...

regardless of HoC rules or the vast body of unknown legislation governing the so-called English peoples who ahh rule wtf.

##Rule of law is not well understood.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sat Sep 7th, 2019 at 04:56:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Prisoners in the Tower? (4.00 / 2)

just as Trump has demonstrated that, depsite a written Constitution, a law can only be applied to a Government willing to accept such limits, Boris is attempting to demonstrate that with no Constitution at all, he ight just be able to do whatever he likes.

Fortune favours the brave. By the time the courts have examined the legality of what is done, it has become the new normal and the EU have to deal with the law as the Government determines it to be.

We are, after all, facing a Prime Minister, who has baldly stated he will not obey the law. We are now going to fnd out whether anything can be done about it

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sat Sep 7th, 2019 at 06:22:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

IOKIYAAC (4.00 / 2)

Can you imagine the outcry if this was Corbyn threatening to break the law? Of course its OK if you are a Conservative. Time was when conservatism was synonymous with law and order...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Sep 7th, 2019 at 07:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (none / 0)

Which law is disputed ("broken" by Mr No-deal)?

Some specificity is warranted by this discourse on Fixed Terms (enacted 2011) which may or not be the question at all forwarded to UK Supreme Court for review.

atm, I'm not reading about statutes or "common law"; I'm reading about "customs" of the HoC, regardless of EU, EC, or TEU or stipulations of voluntary or involuntary withdrawal from it (A50).

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sat Sep 7th, 2019 at 07:52:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (4.00 / 2)

"Which law is disputed ("broken" by Mr No-deal)?"
That will be the Benn Act, when the Queen has given her assent on Monday, September 9. Boris or any other PM will be in violation of that on October 20th if he has not 'sought and secured' either an extension or Parliamentary approval for a no-deal Brexit.

Boris Johnson 'will be forced from power if he defies no-deal law'

The conclusions of a team of leading QCs, which have been sent to the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, make clear that the prime minister would be declared in contempt of court if he tried to remain in No 10 while refusing to obey legislation to prevent the UK leaving the EU without a deal on 31 October. The new law is expected to gain royal assent from the Queen early next week.
....
One of the QCs who provided the unequivocal advice, Philippe Sands, told the Observer: "If the prime minister chooses not to comply with EU (Withdrawal) No 6 Act, he will be subject to an action for contempt which could, logically and as a matter of last resort, lead to imprisonment, but that has never happened and will not happen; Britain is a rule of law country, so he will comply or leave office. All other talk is bluster, as attorney general Geoffrey Cox will already have advised him."

Geoffrey Cox is the Attorney General in the current Conservative Government.

In addition Parliament can select another PM, which might be necessary to gain the approval of the EU. A new PM would be a change of government, after all. But even so, there is no assurance EU agreement will follow.

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

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Sep 8th, 2019 at 09:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (none / 0)

The weird thing is that Parliament may not select the new PM - that would be the Queen, on the advice of her ministers. But who could she possibly choose, except the Leader of he Opposition?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Sep 8th, 2019 at 10:30:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (none / 1)

That is weird, but I can sort of see how it arose historically. But, in the case where a VNC has occurred, who are the Monarchy's ministers? I would think that the ministers of the fallen government would not do. But who would? And is this practice embodied in written law?

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

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Sep 8th, 2019 at 11:55:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (4.00 / 3)

The pre 2011 precedents, which may not now apply, were that on passage of a vote of no confidence the Prime Minister had a choice of resigning or asking the monarch for a dissolution of Parliament.

The only time in the 20th century where the PM chose to resign was in 1924, after being defeated on the vote about the King's Speech at the opening of a new Parliament. The Labour leader of the opposition then formed the first Labour minority government.

There is a reading of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act no confidence/confidence provisions, which suggests that it codifies a slightly modified version of the previous conventions. It follows that the Prime Minister has the choice of resigning or waiting for the 14 days to expire and then holding a general election. If the PM does not resign, then there is no opportunity for another member of the House of Commons to obtain a motion of confidence in their government (unless the Queen dismisses the existing PM and appoints someone else).

These provisions of the 2011 Act are inadequately drafted. Experience is throwing up multiple practical problems, which the next Parliament may have to address.

by Gary J on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 12:50:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (none / 0)

Yes but I think ARGeezer's question, and it is a very good one, is who advises the Queen on what course of action she should take in the event of the PM refusing to resign and being unwilling to nominate someone else to take his place.

Her Majesty normally acts on the advice of the PM, and on the advice of her Privy Council, one headed by one Rees-Mogg. How could Parliament even let her know they do not want a dissolution of Parliament but wishes to proceed with another PM?

The FTPA clearly envisages the possibility of another person being asked to lead a new government in that 14 day period, but does not specify how that can come about if the PM refuses to give way and instead seeks to wait out the 14 day period and call an election.

Suppose the PM, even if he chooses to resign, decides to nominate his favourite Minister, e.g. Dominic Raab, as the next PM even though he clearly doesn't have majority support in the House. Has the Queen got discretion in whom she appoints, and on whose advice must she rely?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 07:46:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (none / 1)

It's a good question because we have seen that the 3-person quorum of the Privy Council that went to Balmoral to advise the Queen on prorogation was, if legal, a Conservative Establishment stitch-up.

However, in this case the controversy would be much greater and more open. Limiting the Queen's advice to Ree-Smogg and two stooges, to the exclusion of the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, would cause such a noise that the very position of the monarch would be called in question. Other advisors (they exist in the upper echelons of the Civil Service and at the Palace) might well suggest that the Queen think mightily carefully before doing the muppet's bidding.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 08:42:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (4.00 / 2)

To make the point I've made before - this assumes the other advisors aren't on the same side as Mogg.

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.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 10:00:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (4.00 / 2)

I think the other point is that the Conservatives and the Establishment are no longer co-terminus... The Conservatives are turning disaster capitalism into disaster politics, which is not good for the Queen or for much of the Establishment either, whereas Corbyn has been a very convention bound leader of her Majesty's opposition.

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

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 10:22:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (4.00 / 3)

I can't think of any finer example of the Establishment than Smuggie flanked by two top Tories. My point would be that the Establishment has slid to the chaotic right.

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

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 11:15:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (none / 0)

The problem with the "UK Constitution" isn't just that it is unwritten, but that it is so unclear, and subject to so much uncertainty. It also rather places Her Majesty in an invidious position, I'm sure one would rather avoid...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 11:26:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (none / 1)

One would quite certainly wish to avoid invidious positions...

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

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 11:32:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (4.00 / 2)

No thanks. The idea of President blair, or Major leaves me somewhat nauseous, but the idea that we might have had President Thacher makes me consider running for the loo.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 01:14:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (none / 1)

The notion there was of a non-executive president who would just do pretty much what the Queen does now. As, roughly, in Germany or Italy now. Not an American or French president.

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

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 01:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How is Belgium coming along? (none / 0)

< pick teeth, suck vigorously >
I understand, sumbuddy managed to submit their candidate to the Comish roster ...

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 02:23:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Belgium's fine (4.00 / 2)

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 03:56:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (4.00 / 3)

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?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 12:01:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (4.00 / 3)

It certainly gives a fresh and useful perspective, though not to forget the decisive role of libertarian billionaires. The English aristocracy has always tolerated the rise of sufficiently wealthy nouveaux riches into its ranks, so we could count the Murdochs and the Barclays in with them.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 01:11:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (4.00 / 3)

I'm confused.

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}

by eurogreen on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 02:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who knows? (4.00 / 3)

And there ended the lesson is basic British constitutional law.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 03:01:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (4.00 / 2)

The ambiguity of the Queen's Powers could be used to her advantage in the old tradition of the Crown siding with the populace, even though that populace be divided. I suspect that, were the Queen to take the initiative, on the advise of selected council, (her choosing between the various councilors on offer), and resolving the crisis on the basis of enabling parliamentary action, that such action would redound to her credit as perhaps the crowning achievement of her long reign.

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."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 05:47:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (4.00 / 2)

And such actions would enable the situation to be resolved in a manner consistent with the constitution of the UK, such as it is.

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

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 05:52:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (4.00 / 4)

they took to the streets over Iraq, and in much heavier numbers. Parliament ignored them then cos they wanted to do something else, and they'll ignore them now, for precisely the same reason.

Democracy, she is slippery

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 01:09:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOKIYAAC (4.00 / 2)

Time was when the conservatives made the laws which overwhelmingly favrouted them and their peer group. So why would they break the law?

But, tax evasion wasn't invented yesterday and the tories have been breaking the spirit of the law since forever. The very origin of the word "Tory" is Irish slang for thief.

They've been quietly breaking the law whenever it suits them, laws don't really apply to the very rich, they have lawyers to explain to the courts that it wasn't really a breach of the law. Boris is carrying on in the tradition.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Sep 8th, 2019 at 11:57:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

not "despite a written a Constitution" (none / 0)

nor even the body of "common law" (case law, review of statutory questions by judiciary officers in a government) with which neither the press nor its readers demonstrate passing familiarity UNTIL one of them finds his or her ass in the dock and THEN the odds are only even whether or not that "offender" impugns the licenses of both prosecutors and defense attys. For entertainment purposes only. However, "IANAL" is not an affirmative defense of westworld civilization.

I might have mentioned. More than once.

Separation of powers (within a bureaucracy): Between how many political divisions are powers distributed by UK statutes or ..."customs" denoting culture?

Also, did you know, legislators (elected representatives of gov) preface United States Code (USC) title (global scope), chapter (local scope), and section (specific app) with definitions of terms therein? BEHOLD "transparent" USC, Title 1, Ch.1.; Is that formula customary or customarily ignored by readers in the UK?

Also, Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, colloquially, rule of man.

archived algorithm
"convoluted 18th Century language"

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sat Sep 7th, 2019 at 07:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "despite a written a Constitution" (none / 0)

"Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion"

Walter Lippmann would have been well positioned to come to self-serving opinions himself, having served with Edward Bernays, subsequent author of 'Propaganda', on the Creel Commission and on the Committee on Public Information during WW I. The primary problem they faced was the opposition of so many German Americans to the US entering WW I on the side of the Allies.

Bernays showed how with techniques later described in his seminal Propaganda, while Lippmann provided the justification for using said techniques in Public Opinion. They, (the government), have been doing it ever since

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

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Sep 8th, 2019 at 03:54:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "despite a written a Constitution" (none / 0)

Have you never read Public Opinion?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sun Sep 8th, 2019 at 05:43:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "despite a written a Constitution" (4.00 / 4)

I have read parts. It seems an ill omen to me that he starts with Plato's image of the cave. Plato was NOT an advocate of the average person. He wanted to be the advisor to tyrants. Even the experience of being sold into slavery by one such tyrant who Plato was trying to advise did not dissuade Plato from his belief that only a ruler could see things rightly - if said ruler followed Plato's advise.

That I am on the right track with Lippmann is confirmed towards the end of chapter I when he states: "My conclusion is that public opinions must be organized for the press if they are to be sound, not by the press as it is today. This organization I conceive to be, in the first place, the task of a political science that has won its place as a formulator in advance of real decision instead of apologist, critic or reporter after the decision has been made."

Lippmann reifies the abstraction of 'Political Science' as some objective science. Political Science gives, in fact, about as successful and accurate description of the political process as US Mainstream Economics gives of the operation of the economy.

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

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 02:49:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "despite a written a Constitution" (none / 1)

The problem for progressives is that they are so for total democracy that faithful average folks have nothing to choose from but Trump, Tories.

by das monde on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 06:53:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You re too kind (4.00 / 2)

to political scientists...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 11:37:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"reifies the abstraction" (none / 0)

of opinion polls and abnormal statistical descriptions? landssakes.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 02:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "reifies the abstraction" (none / 1)

Of Political Science. Note the caps.

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

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 04:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Prisoners in the Tower? (4.00 / 2)

Fortune favours the brave.

I think this is the key point about Boris. He's a public school product, stewed for a couple of decades in glorious English history, with kings and knights and manipulating politicians running civil wars and regular wars and restorations and and all sorts of adventures. A thousand years of historical excitement, pounded into his head.

My reading is that what he wants, the only thing he wants, is to be in the history books along with Henry VIII and Sir Francis Walsingham and Winston Churchill and all the other famous people. You can get there by being good or bad or corrupt or crooked, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter whether Brexit goes through, it doesn't matter if Cummings is imprisoned in the Tower, it doesn't matter if there are riots in the streets, it doesn't matter if Macron finally gets around to putting on his de Gaul hat. All that matters is that there be a huge ruckus of some sort and that Boris Johnson the Great is in the middle of it, doing radical stuff, pushing past the limits of what he can get away with. The goal is to get into the history books so that generations of Eton kids will know his name.

Unlike Theresa May and what's-his-name and that other one who will be relegated to the footnotes in graduate student dissertations a century from now.

by asdf on Sat Sep 7th, 2019 at 11:05:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He who dares, wins... (4.00 / 3)

Well its all a jolly jape and a bit of a wheeze really. What are the little people getting so upset about? They're only the cannon fodder who need a bit of colour and excitement and leadership in their lives, and Boris provides the entertainment factor. Can you imagine anything more boring than Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn running the country, all honest endeavour and sickening earnestness and do-goodery.

Boris doesn't have an honest bone in his body, but who cares if he sticks it up to the Jerries and the Frogs? The British ruling class have been making the croppies and the paddy's lie down for centuries, why change now? Whatever happens, Boris will make his money and is having his fun. Wasn't it Maggie Thatcher who said "there is no such thing as society"? It's every man for himself and let the devil take the hindmost.

The mopping up operations afterwards can be left to the civil service and military. Don't bother Boris with the details. Cummings will be fired when he has outlived his usefulness, or at least becomes more useful as a sacrificial scape goat to take the heat off Boris. And as for those tiresome MPs and their laws and the busybody Judges they want to enforce them, how many divisions have they got? At the end of the day, power comes down to cold steel and the willingness to use it.

He who dares, wins...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Sep 7th, 2019 at 11:37:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fortune or faith (none / 1)

Boris as Kierkegaard's knight of faith:

When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham needed to go beyond mere belief, and needed to go beyond simple resignation to the loss of his son. Abraham needed to believe, in faith, that God's will would be fulfilled, and needed to believe, in faith, that his son would be saved.

by das monde on Sun Sep 8th, 2019 at 07:19:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fortune or faith (4.00 / 3)