"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 17:16, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
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:

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,

She isnt constitutionally bound to take unlawful advice.

If she doesn't take it, she runs the risk of being wrong.

And if she does take it, she runs the risk of being wrong too.

But in that case she can claim she's just a rubber stamp doing her
constitutional duty on advice.

There is no such constitutional duty with deciding
who gets invited to be the next govt alone.

And its very far from clear that she does have any
constitutional duty to do what is unlawful now too.

She can't do that if she's wrong.

And if she's wrong, she's in a constitutional pickle. She will have
interfered with the lawful business of the elected government.

That's part of the job and why she gets paid such stupid money to do it.

No, she's not paid anything like enough to have to decide anything. Do
try to be sensible.

I'll be ignoring this sort of sniping.

In fact she is constitutionally bound to refuse that advice.

Got a cite for that?

Got one for your claim that she gets the privy council to
advise her on who to ask to form the govt after a general
election and just how she gets just one piece of advice on
that given the membership of the privy council that she
has to obey ?

If you think she does it off her own bat,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

I think you have a very strange idea of how it works and what part she
actually plays.

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?

The PM certainly doesnt.

I asked who does, not who doesn't.

Obviously Liz does in that situation.

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.

Doesnt happen anymore.

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

Nope, because you lot dont even hang murderers anymore.

And wouldnt with an unlawful demand.

Which she is in no position to decide for herself.

Bull****.

Your logic is impeccable as always. No wonder everyone finds it so
persuasive.

Corse you never ever say bollix yourself, eh ?

No point in a general election after a 29-Oct default no deal brexit
because it would no longer be a hung parliament anymore, because
the only thing parliament could do then is ask the EU to be allowed to
join the EU again, and even that parliament isnt going to be that stupid.

Are you trying to make any sense?

There you go again.