"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/2019 19:18, Rod Speed wrote:
"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/2019 10:49, Rod Speed wrote:
"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 24/09/2019 12:30, Pancho wrote:
On 24/09/2019 12:19, nightjar wrote:
...
It implies that he wrongly advised the Queen. That means he should
now resign as PM.

Why?
...

Because one of the cornerstones of our system of constitutional
monarchy is that the monarch must be able to rely absolutely on the
advice given by the PM. This judgment provides the basis for the
constitutionally dangerous precedent that the monarch might have to
reject that advice. The only way to avoid that is for any PM who
wrongly advises the monarch to step down from office immediately it is
determined that has happened.

That's fanciful. Liz isnt a fool, she is quite capable of deciding if
the PM advice makes any sense.

Until this ruling, she was constitutionally bound to follow his advice.

Thats bull****.

Cogently argued as always. So much so, I wonder why people don't take you
more seriously.

Now, she could choose to ignore it, which would be a dangerous
precedent, potentially taking us back to before the English Bill of
Rights.

The King/Queen has always been able to do that and clearly doesnt
have to take anyone's advice on who can form the new govt after a
general election and gets to decide who is more likely to be able to
form a viable govt.

I think you'll find she does have to take advice, and does.

Not on that she doesnt. Who do you claim provides that advice
that she has to accept regardless of her opinion on that matter ?