Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Migalot]

Apparently over a million people have already signed a petition to stop the proroguing of Parliament. 

This will be debated in Parliament after the Queens speech. 

Saw quite a few tweets by Remainers explaining how to set up multiple email accounts to sign the petition. One guy boasted that he'd already signed 50 times. 

Of course, I understand that it does not HAVE to be debated, merely considered for debate.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Suspending parliament? Do we have a big enough gallows or will we need to do the job piecemeal?Also the rope does it need to be genuine only or will cheap e-bay aftermarket do?

No!!

If it is addressed to TB it will not turn up!

[Doctor Gollum]

Apparently over a million people have already signed a petition to stop the proroguing of Parliament. 

This will be debated in Parliament after the Queens speech. 

Saw quite a few tweets by Remainers explaining how to set up multiple email accounts to sign the petition. One guy boasted that he'd already signed 50 times. 

Of course, I understand that it does not HAVE to be debated, merely considered for debate.

Is there a criminal offence for doing that? If not, there should be

It does nothing but completely destroy the validity of the process. Unless that is the point

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

It was and is a meaningless Cameron gimmick to give people the illusion that they hold some degree of power and influence.

[Lizzie Zoom]

It was and is a meaningless Cameron gimmick to give people the illusion that they hold some degree of power and influence.

Yes.  That is what the "Government Petition" process does, nothing more, nothing less. Just makes individuals "feel good"!

Look at the latest Petition Report:

https://petition.parliament.uk/

Note the lack of Government response, let alone action which is virtually zero after years of this process.

[LC0112G]

Here we go again. Parliament voted in favour of a referendum and stated that they would carry out the result of it. At this point, Parliament handed its decision making power in this matter to the people.

No, Your either mistaken or peddling fake news.

The Parliamentary briefing documents at the time of the referendum all stated that the referendum result would be advisory only. Last time someone peddled that lie untruth I posted the link to the document. It's here, on page 25 : https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf . This was published before the referendum, and formed the advice upon which the MP's voted to hold it.

Parliament did not hand "its decision making power in this matter to the people". It cannot, because it is and always has been sovereign.

Since then parliament has voted to invoke Art50 and passed a (non binding) motion stating it did not want a no deal exit. I think all the other motions have been defeated, and certainly the May deal has been rejected 3 times. 

Most of the rest of the post involves ignoring hundreds of years of constitutional laws too. There may be some countries where the people are sovereign, but the UK ain't one of them.

[Viral_Jim]

Here we go again. Parliament voted in favour of a referendum and stated that they would carry out the result of it. At this point, Parliament handed its decision making power in this matter to the people.

No, Your either mistaken or peddling fake news.

The Parliamentary briefing documents at the time of the referendum all stated that the referendum result would be advisory only. Last time someone peddled that lie untruth I posted the link to the document. It's here, on page 25 : https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf . This was published before the referendum, and formed the advice upon which the MP's voted to hold it.

Parliament did not hand "its decision making power in this matter to the people". It cannot, because it is and always has been sovereign.

Since then parliament has voted to invoke Art50 and passed a (non binding) motion stating it did not want a no deal exit. I think all the other motions have been defeated, and certainly the May deal has been rejected 3 times. 

Most of the rest of the post involves ignoring hundreds of years of constitutional laws too. There may be some countries where the people are sovereign, but the UK ain't one of them.

^^ This.

Its also worth noting that the current parliament isn't the one that called the referendum, and its a central tenet of our constitution that no parliament can bind its successors. So even if you consider the referendum result to be binding (it wasn't as posted above), there is no way that the current government could be compelled to act on it.

[Migalot]

Here we go again. Parliament voted in favour of a referendum and stated that they would carry out the result of it. At this point, Parliament handed its decision making power in this matter to the people.

No, Your either mistaken or peddling fake news.

The Parliamentary briefing documents at the time of the referendum all stated that the referendum result would be advisory only. Last time someone peddled that lie untruth I posted the link to the document. It's here, on page 25 : https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf . This was published before the referendum, and formed the advice upon which the MP's voted to hold it.

Parliament did not hand "its decision making power in this matter to the people". It cannot, because it is and always has been sovereign.

Since then parliament has voted to invoke Art50 and passed a (non binding) motion stating it did not want a no deal exit. I think all the other motions have been defeated, and certainly the May deal has been rejected 3 times. 

Most of the rest of the post involves ignoring hundreds of years of constitutional laws too. There may be some countries where the people are sovereign, but the UK ain't one of them.

The referendum paper clearly stated "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."

Thus it removed any advisory status.

 

[LC0112G]

Here we go again. Parliament voted in favour of a referendum and stated that they would carry out the result of it. At this point, Parliament handed its decision making power in this matter to the people.

No, Your either mistaken or peddling fake news.

The Parliamentary briefing documents at the time of the referendum all stated that the referendum result would be advisory only. Last time someone peddled that lie untruth I posted the link to the document. It's here, on page 25 : https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf . This was published before the referendum, and formed the advice upon which the MP's voted to hold it.

Parliament did not hand "its decision making power in this matter to the people". It cannot, because it is and always has been sovereign.

Since then parliament has voted to invoke Art50 and passed a (non binding) motion stating it did not want a no deal exit. I think all the other motions have been defeated, and certainly the May deal has been rejected 3 times. 

Most of the rest of the post involves ignoring hundreds of years of constitutional laws too. There may be some countries where the people are sovereign, but the UK ain't one of them.

The referendum paper clearly stated "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."

Thus it removed any advisory status.

No. The referendum paper cannot 'trump' the law/constitution. The referendum was clearly non binding.

[Viral_Jim]

The referendum paper clearly stated "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."

Thus it removed any advisory status.

 

As with almost everything in life, and politics in particular, just saying it doesn't make it true.

eg.

There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal.
Boris Johnson 2017

[LC0112G]

Also, unlike the USA written version, the British Constitution can be easily changed by Acts of Parliament, with thousands of 'revisions' over the centuries. Maybe the next Law to be enacted  should be to reform Parliament, getting rid of the House of Lords, reducing the number of MP's, and charging them with the defined legal responsibility to carry out the wishes of the majority of the electorate, with it becoming a criminal offence to not lodge your vote during National Elections and Referendums.

Radical? Yes, too true, and this country needs the changes now!

Having a written constitution has plusses and minuses.  This shows the difference between our (UK) system of government and the US system.

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. Parliament alone can institute any law, revoke any law, and modify any law in any way it wants by a simple majority. HMG can introduce an act to say the moon is made of cheese, and inhabited solely by Unicorns and Magic Money trees. If they can get a simple majority of 50%+1 of MP's to vote for it then from that point on, within the juristiction of the UK, then legally the moon IS made of cheese, and populated by mythical beasts and flora/fauna.

In the US, Congress/Senate are NOT 'sovereign' by simple majority. They cannot legally modify or revoke the constitution on their own. The constitution is 'above' the law (in UK terms), and requires a 2/3rds majority in congress, and a 3/4 majority of the individual states for any amendment to be passed. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution.

There have only been 27 amendments to the constitution since it's adoption in the late 1790's. The last one was adopted in 1992, but took 200 years to come into effect when Missouri, Michigan, New Jersey and Illinois finally ratified it in 1992. https://kids.laws.com/27th-amendment. The previous amendment (the 26th) took 100 days to be ratified when lowering the voting age to 18.

There appear to be 6 outstanding amendments which still haven't been ratified - the oldest dating from 1789. I CBA to look them all up, but if some groups of flat-earthers in the 1790's decided the moon is made of cheese, and inhabited solely by Unicorns and Magic Money, and all it needs is one more state to ratify it then Neil Armstrong/Buzz Aldrin might be in trouble. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... amendments

[Lizzie Zoom]

Also, unlike the USA written version, the British Constitution can be easily changed by Acts of Parliament, with thousands of 'revisions' over the centuries. Maybe the next Law to be enacted  should be to reform Parliament, getting rid of the House of Lords, reducing the number of MP's, and charging them with the defined legal responsibility to carry out the wishes of the majority of the electorate, with it becoming a criminal offence to not lodge your vote during National Elections and Referendums.

Radical? Yes, too true, and this country needs the changes now!

Having a written constitution has plusses and minuses.  This shows the difference between our (UK) system of government and the US system.

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. Parliament alone can institute any law, revoke any law, and modify any law in any way it wants by a simple majority. HMG can introduce an act to say the moon is made of cheese, and inhabited solely by Unicorns and Magic Money trees. If they can get a simple majority of 50%+1 of MP's to vote for it then from that point on, within the juristiction of the UK, then legally the moon IS made of cheese, and populated by mythical beasts and flora/fauna.

In the US, Congress/Senate are NOT 'sovereign' by simple majority. They cannot legally modify or revoke the constitution on their own. The constitution is 'above' the law (in UK terms), and requires a 2/3rds majority in congress, and a 3/4 majority of the individual states for any amendment to be passed. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution.

There have only been 27 amendments to the constitution since it's adoption in the late 1790's. The last one was adopted in 1992, but took 200 years to come into effect when Missouri, Michigan, New Jersey and Illinois finally ratified it in 1992. https://kids.laws.com/27th-amendment. The previous amendment (the 26th) took 100 days to be ratified when lowering the voting age to 18.

There appear to be 6 outstanding amendments which still haven't been ratified - the oldest dating from 1789. I CBA to look them all up, but if some groups of flat-earthers in the 1790's decided the moon is made of cheese, and inhabited solely by Unicorns and Magic Money, and all it needs is one more state to ratify it then Neil Armstrong/Buzz Aldrin might be in trouble. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... amendments

That is why changing the Second Amendment, the Right To Bear Arms, is so hard to do ;

Their laws are set in concrete!

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Here we go again. Parliament voted in favour of a referendum and stated that they would carry out the result of it. At this point, Parliament handed its decision making power in this matter to the people.

No, Your either mistaken or peddling fake news.

The Parliamentary briefing documents at the time of the referendum all stated that the referendum result would be advisory only. Last time someone peddled that lie untruth I posted the link to the document. It's here, on page 25 : https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf . This was published before the referendum, and formed the advice upon which the MP's voted to hold it.

Parliament did not hand "its decision making power in this matter to the people". It cannot, because it is and always has been sovereign.

Since then parliament has voted to invoke Art50 and passed a (non binding) motion stating it did not want a no deal exit. I think all the other motions have been defeated, and certainly the May deal has been rejected 3 times. 

Most of the rest of the post involves ignoring hundreds of years of constitutional laws too. There may be some countries where the people are sovereign, but the UK ain't one of them.

Your talking at cross purposes again. The Prime minister of the day (along with many others in parliament, including his replacement), stated in Parliament and on TV screens, that they would abide by the result of the referendum. Seemples.
By invoking article 50, Parliament gave the EU notice that the UK was leaving the EU. Not leaving if they had a deal that could pass through the commons or any other terms & conditions. Just leaving.
They now act as though they didn't know what they were voting for, while trying to convince us that we didn't know what we were voting for.
Technically and legally, you may be correct, but the politicians made a promise / pact with the electorate that they would enact their decision, fully expecting a remain result. The fact that they legally cant give sovereignty to the people as and when they choose is a mere technicality on this issue.
It was the fact that the people gave the wrong answer which has shown many of them up to be the liars and charlatans that they are.
Hopefully, after October 31st, none of this will matter any more. 

[LC0112G]

Here we go again. Parliament voted in favour of a referendum and stated that they would carry out the result of it. At this point, Parliament handed its decision making power in this matter to the people.

No, Your either mistaken or peddling fake news.

The Parliamentary briefing documents at the time of the referendum all stated that the referendum result would be advisory only. Last time someone peddled that lie untruth I posted the link to the document. It's here, on page 25 : https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf . This was published before the referendum, and formed the advice upon which the MP's voted to hold it.

Parliament did not hand "its decision making power in this matter to the people". It cannot, because it is and always has been sovereign.

Since then parliament has voted to invoke Art50 and passed a (non binding) motion stating it did not want a no deal exit. I think all the other motions have been defeated, and certainly the May deal has been rejected 3 times. 

Most of the rest of the post involves ignoring hundreds of years of constitutional laws too. There may be some countries where the people are sovereign, but the UK ain't one of them.

Your talking at cross purposes again. The Prime minister of the day (along with many others in parliament, including his replacement), stated in Parliament and on TV screens, that they would abide by the result of the referendum. Seemples.

Again, No. The Prime minister of the day CANNOT bind that parliament, or any future parliament. The Prime minister isn't sovereign. Parliament is Sovereign. Once you understand that simple point of our constitution then you realise that most of the things Ministers say are simply intentions - not promises.

By invoking article 50, Parliament gave the EU notice that the UK was leaving the EU. Not leaving if they had a deal that could pass through the commons or any other terms & conditions. Just leaving.

And again No. Invoking Art50 informs the EU of a member countries intention to leave the EU, and then details how the withdrawl agreement will/should work. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/577971/EPRS_BRI(2016)577971_EN.pdf
The EU court have agreed the intention is revocable, and since under the UK constitution no current parliament can bind a future parliament, a future parliament can decide to do whatever it wants, if it can get enough MP's to agree. And future parliament does NOT mean after a general election - a new parliament is formed after every Queens speech.

They now act as though they didn't know what they were voting for, while trying to convince us that we didn't know what we were voting for.
Technically and legally, you may be correct, but the politicians made a promise / pact with the electorate that they would enact their decision, fully expecting a remain result. The fact that they legally cant give sovereignty to the people as and when they choose is a mere technicality on this issue.
It was the fact that the people gave the wrong answer which has shown many of them up to be the liars and charlatans that they are.
Hopefully, after October 31st, none of this will matter any more. 

Legally is all that matters under our constitution. Politicians (of all flavours) lie. Get used to it.

[ronnyd]

The overriding thing to me is that the EU won,t give the UK any form of a reasonable deal, is because their modus operandii is if we don,t vote the way they want they hope we will keep trying until we crawl into line. Sorry if this is (slightly) off topic but that,s how i see it. Let,s get out on Halloween and make our way in the world. Same as we did before Heath and his cronies took us in. Getting totally pissed off with the whole farce. Brian Rix, where are you.