On 26/09/2019 09:39, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 17:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 16:56, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 12:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 12:00, nightjar wrote:
...
Until this ruling, she was constitutionally bound to follow his
advice. Now, she could choose to ignore it,

I think not.Â* She is still bound constitutionally to follow the
advice of the Prime Minister.Â* She cannot take it into her own hands
to second guess what the courts might decide if they become involved...

Constitutional experts interviewed last night suggest that the
judgment opens up the possibility that she could ignore the advice,
if she had grounds to think it was unlawful.

What would happen if she got it wrong, and denied the legitimate
government the ability to do something it was perfectly entitled to do?
Constitutionally, that would be an outrage and a crisis.

I think you do the Queen a disservice. She has been at the job longer
than Boris has been alive. It wouldn't be her who made a mistake, even
if she chose to refuse the advice,

Of course it would be her. If a mistake is made and she has caused it
by not following the advice she is constitutionally bound to take, of
course it would be her fault.

rather than simply question Boris
(while he stays PM) more closely if he appears to be doing something
unusual or controversial.

No-one's denying that she can counsel and advise, in private, but she
has to do what the government demands of her. That's her constitutional
position. It doesn't end up well for monarchs in a democracy if they
try to interfere. They tend to get abolished, or worse.

With constitutional matters, it is always necessary to look not only at
how it has an effect now but also at how it might have an effect in the
future. Bismark made this mistake in Germany. His constitution worked
well with a strong Chancellor and a malleable Kaiser. With a Kaiser who
had been made to feel inadequate since childhood and a Chancellor who
could not curb his ambitions to demonstrate to the world that he was the
equal of his royal cousins, it helped to contribute to the start of the
Great War.

That is why Boris should resign immediately, thus setting a precedent
for any future PM who might wrongly advise the monarch. That would avoid
giving some future monarch, perhaps as yet unborn, an excuse to try to
reclaim some of the ancient powers of kings.

When you step into unknown territory, the prudent will take the best
advice available. Because it's unknown territory, however, that advice
is subject to error and 'events, dear boy, events'. If things go wrong,
it's not reasonable after the event to blame either the advisor or the
person taking that advice.

Why then do you?

However, Boris seems far too arrogant even to admit he made a mistake,
despite the unanimous ruling of 11 of the highest judges in the land.

Isn't 20:20 hindsight a wonderful thing?

The fact is, the Supreme Court ventured into completely unmarked
territory with its judgement, and had in fact to reverse an earlier
decision by the English High Court. What Boris did wasn't therefore
clearly wrong when he did it; it was only subsequently decided that it
was. And that doesn't make it a resigning matter in anyone's book.

Instead, he seems intent on stirring up dissent in parliament,
presumably in the hope that will trigger the vote of no confidence he so
dearly wants, so that there can be a general election before 31st October.

Which is exactly what the country needs. It currently has a
non-functioning government and a Parliament intent on maintaining that
status.