yeah, what Pride said, Corbyn is a proper conservative to be proud of, brexiteer for life, economic plan identical to BoJo's, admires autocratic regimes and basket cases from the americas
The possibility of judicial review was not in respect of the advice, but the proroguing.
After all wouldn’t you say it was at least arguable that it would be somewhat irrational to use archaic executive powers to suspend parliament in order to further the cause of parliamentary sovereignty?
LOL at not having sat in Parliament for a while removing your finger from the pulse. Look at all those in touch individuals on the green benches!
It's funny how die hard Tory and Labour types loathe a centrist, somehow believing that the majority of the population long to have their inner trot or facist awakened.
Woe betide anyone that seeks to ensure the limits of the executive's power are contained by the judiciary.
"The possibility of judicial review was not in respect of the advice..."
Did you mishear? Here's the passage:
"In order to close down Parliament, the prime minister would have to go to Her Majesty the Queen and ask for her permission."
[A request which Major described as one that would be "inconceivable" the Queen would refuse.]
"The Queen's decision cannot be challenged in law, but the prime minister's advice to the Queen can, I believe, be challenged in law - and I for one would be prepared to seek judicial review to prevent Parliament being bypassed."
P.S. The debate is about national sovereignty, only people like Dominic Grieve try to make out that means Parliamentary Sovereignty.
I think he’s backing Hunt in the sense of if he has to chose one of them then sure as shoot it won’t be young Alex, so that kinda narrows things down a bit.
But I would say that he debate is very much about parliamentary sovereignty or did I imagine leavers complaining about having laws imposed on us from Brussels?
"The debate is about national sovereignty, only people like Dominic Grieve try to make out that means Parliamentary Sovereignty"
This is semantic w**kery. The entire debate is couched in "Take Back Control" BS, with lots of citation of how many laws come from the EU. Therefore it is de facto about legislative sovereignty, which in turn relates to the authority of Parliament (which in any event was never compromised as the effect of EU law was derived from an Act of Parliament, but let's not get too bogged down in the legal reality when we can bash foreigners). We've already seen the government try to misuse executive power to push through Brexit related acts, so it's absolutely right that this is properly policed.
As far as I can tell the EU never invaded and installed its own government in the UK, so our "national sovereignty" was never compromised, though I expect some blog can tell us about how there was a secret committee operating from the offices of the European Banking Authority that secretly controlled the so-called UK "government".
All the ERG types purport to care about is Parliamentary Sovereignty.
They are equally contemptuous of local government as they are of the Brussels. It is all about concentrating power in Westminster and their inner circle.
1. Handing over a healthy budget surplus to Labour (which they then spent quite comprehensively) after leading the country out of recession, meaning that by 1997 the country enjoyed the most benign economic conditions in a century.
2. Gulf War I, which at least was legal and based on an international mandate.
3. Won more votes than any PM ever.
4. Bringing the IRA to the table to start the negotiations which led ultimately to the Good Friday agreement.
5. Negotiating an opt-out from Monetary Union in Maastricht.
Look what Gulf War II led to. No mandate, no strategy, no WMDs, years of directionless and costly (both human and monetary) occupation of countries which didn't want us there. A complete and utter waste of time based on the US saying "trust us - we KNOW he has WMDs there".
To be fair to Major he does know a thing or two about proroguing Parliament. After all, he presided over it himself when the decision was made to prorogue to suppress publication of the "cash for questions" report...
yeah, the only person to expand democracy, tie HMG to the rule of law as enforceable by the average punter and preside over the rebuilding of the country after the nightmarish slide into an Escape from New York style decline of the 80s car crash was evil
ffs
the problem with blair was he beleived the army when they said they could sort Sierra Leone and they pulled it off so he had no reason to not believe they could pull it off in Iraq
I don’t see that it would be legal to prorogue parliament to get a no deal brexshit- must be unreasonable and therefore judicially reviewable. Could the speaker refuse to implement it as an abuse of process? Anyone know?
I am not a litigator , but it seems unreasonable to me for the PM ( a public official or rep) to advise the queen to suspend parliament, which I think she has to follow such PM advice, simply to circumvent the will of the house.
I think unchartered waters but on my limited knowledge of JR a reasonable case.
Ah, yes. Major was part of the Thatcher government that swallowed the Chicago School bullshit about reducing industrial capacity to reduce inflation and caused mass unemployment and then implementing crank supply-side economics and gross income and economic inequality. As PM his government tried to shore up the UK's weak pound by joining to the ERM tagged to the Deutschmark, and as the UK is not like Germany, but a service-based, importing country, that alignment was unsustainable and Sterling was vulnerable to speculation. so it proved, so the Tory Govt (Lamont was a terrible Chancellor) was forced to raise interest rates to 13-18 per cent, tipping the UK into recession (again).
Major was responsible for mass unemployment, recession and weakening Sterling. He also had a view of Little England of warm beer,long shadows on the village green and maiden aunts cycling to communion (almost like Denning MR's judgement in Miller v Jackson), so he was totally out of touch with modern Britain.
His party was (and still is) one of sleaze, hypocrisy, LGBT-phobia, Europhobia, racism, harsh eugenics, massive inequality, corruption and economic incompetence.
Johnson is Trump's w**k-sock, but Major is in no position to lecture that entitled clown on anything.
May stand corrected per Lawson, but JM presided over the fiasco when Soros speculated against Sterling.
There's still the socio-economic factors and recession-causing policies which does not render credibility the worst (until Maybot) PM and Govt since WW2.
Labour won a 177-seat majority in 1997.
There's still the racism etc as mentioned above.
0
0
Last won an election more than 27 years ago, left Downing Street more than 22 years ago, last sat in Parliament more than 18 years ago.
Not exactly a man with his finger on the pulse...
0
1
I miss the 90s so much
0
1
did they have Edwina currie on too?
0
1
On what?
Little Major?
"Oh, yes, Edwina, you like that, don't you? Most satisfactory."
0
0
yeah, what Pride said, Corbyn is a proper conservative to be proud of, brexiteer for life, economic plan identical to BoJo's, admires autocratic regimes and basket cases from the americas
0
1
Funny, I thought his words were intelligent and well judged.
Which parts of the interview do you think indicated he didn’t have his finger on the pulse?
0
1
The part where he thinks using a judicial review to prevent the Prime Minister advising the Queen ranks pretty highly...
0
1
Erm, no.
The possibility of judicial review was not in respect of the advice, but the proroguing.
After all wouldn’t you say it was at least arguable that it would be somewhat irrational to use archaic executive powers to suspend parliament in order to further the cause of parliamentary sovereignty?
0
1
He's "backing" Hunt and is therefore back down to notch 0 after a brief liaison with notch 1 further to his recent Brexit sense-talking.
0
1
LOL at not having sat in Parliament for a while removing your finger from the pulse. Look at all those in touch individuals on the green benches!
It's funny how die hard Tory and Labour types loathe a centrist, somehow believing that the majority of the population long to have their inner trot or facist awakened.
Woe betide anyone that seeks to ensure the limits of the executive's power are contained by the judiciary.
0
1
"The possibility of judicial review was not in respect of the advice..."
Did you mishear? Here's the passage:
"In order to close down Parliament, the prime minister would have to go to Her Majesty the Queen and ask for her permission."
[A request which Major described as one that would be "inconceivable" the Queen would refuse.]
"The Queen's decision cannot be challenged in law, but the prime minister's advice to the Queen can, I believe, be challenged in law - and I for one would be prepared to seek judicial review to prevent Parliament being bypassed."
P.S. The debate is about national sovereignty, only people like Dominic Grieve try to make out that means Parliamentary Sovereignty.
0
1
I think he’s backing Hunt in the sense of if he has to chose one of them then sure as shoot it won’t be young Alex, so that kinda narrows things down a bit.
0
0
Then I must have misheard.
My apologies, I was in the kitchen at the time.
But I would say that he debate is very much about parliamentary sovereignty or did I imagine leavers complaining about having laws imposed on us from Brussels?
0
1
Apology accepted!
0
1
has anybody on rof previously apologised for anything?
this could be a record!
0
2
"The debate is about national sovereignty, only people like Dominic Grieve try to make out that means Parliamentary Sovereignty"
This is semantic w**kery. The entire debate is couched in "Take Back Control" BS, with lots of citation of how many laws come from the EU. Therefore it is de facto about legislative sovereignty, which in turn relates to the authority of Parliament (which in any event was never compromised as the effect of EU law was derived from an Act of Parliament, but let's not get too bogged down in the legal reality when we can bash foreigners). We've already seen the government try to misuse executive power to push through Brexit related acts, so it's absolutely right that this is properly policed.
As far as I can tell the EU never invaded and installed its own government in the UK, so our "national sovereignty" was never compromised, though I expect some blog can tell us about how there was a secret committee operating from the offices of the European Banking Authority that secretly controlled the so-called UK "government".
0
1
All the ERG types purport to care about is Parliamentary Sovereignty.
They are equally contemptuous of local government as they are of the Brussels. It is all about concentrating power in Westminster and their inner circle.
0
1
Them good ole days
when boys were boys, girls were girls and statesmen were statesmen
0
1
Major was a shit PM.
Legacy: -
1. Gulf War 1.
2. Maastricht Treaty.
3. Black Wednesday.
4. Bosnia
5. Privatised British Rail.
6. Back to Basics when at the same time fooking Edwina Currie at every chance.
7. Unemployment.
8. Was so shit that Tony Balir got Labour elected.
9. fooking Edwina Currie.
0
1
Yes, wibble, or alternatively:
1. Handing over a healthy budget surplus to Labour (which they then spent quite comprehensively) after leading the country out of recession, meaning that by 1997 the country enjoyed the most benign economic conditions in a century.
2. Gulf War I, which at least was legal and based on an international mandate.
3. Won more votes than any PM ever.
4. Bringing the IRA to the table to start the negotiations which led ultimately to the Good Friday agreement.
5. Negotiating an opt-out from Monetary Union in Maastricht.
0
0
2. Gulf War I, which at least was legal and based on an international mandate. - look what it led to given the strategic fook ups.
0
1
Look what Gulf War II led to. No mandate, no strategy, no WMDs, years of directionless and costly (both human and monetary) occupation of countries which didn't want us there. A complete and utter waste of time based on the US saying "trust us - we KNOW he has WMDs there".
0
1
As well as fvcking Major, Currie appointed Jimmy Saville to the management of a hospital. An era of terrible judgement.
0
1
Or of Tony Blair.
0
1
BJ will be a nightmare of Trump levels.
Blair was simply evil.
Just because Major was shit, and he was, does not mean I think other shit PMs were not shit.
HTH
0
1
Major was appalling. Like Heath, the chip on his shoulder just keeps on growing. He can't handle it that his "Bastards" are now in the mainstream.
0
0
To be fair to Major he does know a thing or two about proroguing Parliament. After all, he presided over it himself when the decision was made to prorogue to suppress publication of the "cash for questions" report...
0
0
I have said it before, and I shall say it again: we need William Hague as our PM.
0
1
God, Hague was terrible. Couldn't run a bath.
Portillo would have been a fabulous PM.
0
1
wibble10 Jul 19 13:59
BJ will be a nightmare of Trump levels.
Blair was simply evil.
______________________________________________________________
yeah, the only person to expand democracy, tie HMG to the rule of law as enforceable by the average punter and preside over the rebuilding of the country after the nightmarish slide into an Escape from New York style decline of the 80s car crash was evil
ffs
the problem with blair was he beleived the army when they said they could sort Sierra Leone and they pulled it off so he had no reason to not believe they could pull it off in Iraq
0
1
I don’t see that it would be legal to prorogue parliament to get a no deal brexshit- must be unreasonable and therefore judicially reviewable. Could the speaker refuse to implement it as an abuse of process? Anyone know?
0
1
"ust be unreasonable and therefore judicially reviewable."
Chrsit the level of legal stupid for a lawyer's board stuns me at times.
0
0
I am not a litigator , but it seems unreasonable to me for the PM ( a public official or rep) to advise the queen to suspend parliament, which I think she has to follow such PM advice, simply to circumvent the will of the house.
I think unchartered waters but on my limited knowledge of JR a reasonable case.
What do litigation peeps think?
0
1
we think you and your ilk should stick to gossiping with the typing pool and fetching drinks
0
0
Pride is correct about Major proroguing parliament in '97.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/mar/19/conservatives.uk
0
1
Ah, yes. Major was part of the Thatcher government that swallowed the Chicago School bullshit about reducing industrial capacity to reduce inflation and caused mass unemployment and then implementing crank supply-side economics and gross income and economic inequality. As PM his government tried to shore up the UK's weak pound by joining to the ERM tagged to the Deutschmark, and as the UK is not like Germany, but a service-based, importing country, that alignment was unsustainable and Sterling was vulnerable to speculation. so it proved, so the Tory Govt (Lamont was a terrible Chancellor) was forced to raise interest rates to 13-18 per cent, tipping the UK into recession (again).
Major was responsible for mass unemployment, recession and weakening Sterling. He also had a view of Little England of warm beer,long shadows on the village green and maiden aunts cycling to communion (almost like Denning MR's judgement in Miller v Jackson), so he was totally out of touch with modern Britain.
His party was (and still is) one of sleaze, hypocrisy, LGBT-phobia, Europhobia, racism, harsh eugenics, massive inequality, corruption and economic incompetence.
Johnson is Trump's w**k-sock, but Major is in no position to lecture that entitled clown on anything.
0
1
Ah yes, Volckers 20% interest rates had nothing to do with "reducing industrial capacity "
And " joining to the ERM tagged to the Deutschmark," was done by Lawson under Thatcher
If you want to vomit out Labour rewriting, at least get your facts right
0
0
May stand corrected per Lawson, but JM presided over the fiasco when Soros speculated against Sterling.
There's still the socio-economic factors and recession-causing policies which does not render credibility the worst (until Maybot) PM and Govt since WW2.
Labour won a 177-seat majority in 1997.
There's still the racism etc as mentioned above.
Join the discussion