On 26/09/2019 10:59, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
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? Â*
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.Â* If a mistake is made and she has caused it
by not following the advice she is constitutionally bound to take,

She isnt constitutionally bound to take unlawful advice.

If she doesn't take it, she runs the risk of being wrong. And if she's
wrong, she's in a constitutional pickle. She will have interfered with
the lawful business of the elected government.

In fact she is constitutionally bound to refuse that advice.

Got a cite for that?

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.

Thats wrong when the demand is unlawful.

But who's to say it's unlawful?

That's her constitutional position.Â* It doesn't end up well for
monarchs in a democracy if they try to interfere.Â* They tend to get
abolished, or worse.

Doesnt happen anymore.

That's only because monarchs have wound their necks in, and very
sensibly avoided any active interference.

And wouldnt with an unlawful demand.

Which she is in no position to decide for herself.

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.Â* It currently has a
non-functioning government and a Parliament intent on maintaining that
status.

There aint gunna be a general election before 29-Oct, you watch.

I doubt that there will be just after a default no deal brexit on 29-Oct
either
because the parliament would carry on regardless and it makes sense to wait
till its proven that the no deal brexit works fine to have a general
election.

No. If there's no general election just after a default no-deal Brexit,
it will be because the opposition is still running scared of the
electorate, and is rather strangely unwilling even to try to assume the
power they've been saying is what the country desperately needs.

It's a very odd situation. And it doesn't reflect well on Labour at all.