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.


--
Colin Bignell

On 25/09/2019 09:21, nightjar wrote:
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.



The Queen is now probably amongst the large number that doesn't trust
boris at all.

Of course there is no requirement to tell the Queen why you are doing it
AFAIK.

The reason boris didn't present any evidence may have something to do
with what he told The Queen so she didn't get called to testify but
unless the room was bugged we will never know.

On 25/09/2019 09:21, nightjar wrote:
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.

There is no basis for saying that. It was completely uncharted
territory. His actions may have been proper or they may have been
improper, but there was no way of knowing which at the time.

"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.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/2019 09:21, nightjar wrote:
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.



The Queen is now probably amongst the large number that doesn't trust
boris at all.

Of course there is no requirement to tell the Queen why you are doing it
AFAIK.

The reason boris didn't present any evidence may have something to do with
what he told The Queen so she didn't get called to testify but unless the
room was bugged we will never know.

Boris may well say in his memoirs like Cameron is currently doing.

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.

Constitutionally, she isn't allowed to, though.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 20:15:44 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

The reason boris didn't present any evidence may have something to do with
what he told The Queen so she didn't get called to testify but unless the
room was bugged we will never know.

Boris may well say in his memoirs like Cameron is currently doing.

Surely more people will be interested in any memoirs by the nutty clown than
in any memoirs by boring Cameron. LOL

--
Bod addressing senile Rot:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
Message-ID:

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:49:17 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


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

If the resident all-knowing senile Australian troll says so, it must be so,
eh, senile Rodent?

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

"Norman Wells" 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.

Constitutionally, she isn't allowed to, though.

Thats bull****.

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

--
Colin Bignell

On 25/09/2019 11:41, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" 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.

Constitutionally, she isn't allowed to, though.

Thats bull****.

Such cogent logic!

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 20:41:08 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Constitutionally, she isn't allowed to, though.

That¢s bull****.

Yeah, senile Rodent, KEEP teaching those dumb Brits how things REALLY are in
Britain, and those dumb Yanks how things REALLY are in the US, ...and those
dumb Irish how things REALLY are in Ireland, and the Europeans how things
REALLY are in the EU, you totally ****ed up trolling piece of Australian
****!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 25/09/2019 12:00, nightjar wrote:
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.
Now, she could choose to ignore it,

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

which would be a dangerous
precedent, potentially taking us back to before the English Bill of Rights.

Which is why it won't happen of course.

On 25/09/2019 13:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , nightjar
wrote:

Until this ruling, she was constitutionally bound to follow his
advice. Now, she could choose to ignore it, which would be a dangerous
precedent, potentially taking us back to before the English Bill of
Rights.

Well it looks like the SC used what seems to be Art. 1 of the BoR, to
whit:

"the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with laws by
regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;"

even though proroguing does not suspend or dispense with any laws,
merely the sitting of Parliament. Meanwhile I refer you to what seems
to be Art. 8:

"the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought
not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament;"

and note that prorogation is a proceeding of Parliament. And further,
Art. 12:

"for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and
preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently."

which provision has just been violated by the SC. Until this Parliament
is prorogued and a new Queens Speech made, no substantial bills can be
passed. So it seems that the SC, and the opposition parties, are
colluding in violating the BoR.

The Supreme Court holds that it is entitled to rule on the lawfulness of
the Prime Minister's actions in this case and the relevant part of the
judgment is as follows:

'The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Ministers
advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The
courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of
acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court
held that €œthe King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative
but that which the law of the land allows him€�. However, in considering
prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different
questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its
extent. The second is whether the exercise of that power, within its
limits, is open to legal challenge. This second question may depend upon
what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial
review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have
jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative
power. All the parties to this case accept that. This Court has
concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her
Majesty to prorogue Parliament.'


--
Colin Bignell

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.



--
Colin Bignell

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.

On 25/09/2019 13:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , nightjar
wrote:

Until this ruling, she was constitutionally bound to follow his
advice. Now, she could choose to ignore it, which would be a dangerous
precedent, potentially taking us back to before the English Bill of
Rights.

Well it looks like the SC used what seems to be Art. 1 of the BoR, to
whit:

"the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with laws by
regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;"

even though proroguing does not suspend or dispense with any laws,
merely the sitting of Parliament. Meanwhile I refer you to what seems
to be Art. 8:

"the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought
not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament;"

and note that prorogation is a proceeding of Parliament. And further,
Art. 12:

Her reasoning was that since prorogation involved being outside the
commons, (HoL and Her Maj.) it was not a 'proceeding in parliament'
And therefore it ought not to interfere with freedom of speech or
debates in parliament

Its about as weak and weaselly as it gets. In essence proroguing *for
any purpose* is now illegal as it always inetrfceres with debates in
parliament




"for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and
preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently."

which provision has just been violated by the SC. Until this Parliament
is prorogued and a new Queens Speech made, no substantial bills can be
passed. So it seems that the SC, and the opposition parties, are
colluding in violating the BoR.

Indeed.


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
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.


What would happen Boris got it wrong, and denied the legitimate
government the ability to do something it was perfectly entitled to do?

Constitutionally, that would no longer be an outrage and a crisis
but merely evidence that the Supreme Court was biased



What would happen if Corbyn 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, and clear evidence
of a Communist Take-over. The Army should be mobilised immediately,
Martial Law should be declared, Corbyn and his cronies arrested and
put on trial and a caretaker government installed.


michael adams

.....

"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****.

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. And that does not include deciding that some
of the policys of say the Trots are unacceptable etc.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 04:18:30 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


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

That¢s bull****.

Nope, that's just more TROLL**** on your part!

--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: .com"

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.

"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 ?

On 26/09/2019 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.Â* 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 ?

She has the whole Privy Council at her disposal. Advising the monarch
is what they're there to do.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 11:22:19 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



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

Not on that she doesn¢t.

LOL Auto-contradicting sick senile idiot!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

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

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.

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.
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.


--
Colin Bignell

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.

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.

That's 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 doesn't
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 doesn't. Who do you claim provides that advice
that she has to accept regardless of her opinion on that matter ?

She has the whole Privy Council at her disposal. Advising the monarch
is what they're there to do.

There are 702 to chose from

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:


"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 ?

She has the whole Privy Council at her disposal.

They dont advise on that issue.

Advising the monarch is what they're there to do.

Not on that they dont.

"nightjar" wrote in message
...
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. She is still bound constitutionally to follow the advice
of the Prime Minister. 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, rather than simply question Boris (while he
stays PM) more closely if he appears to be doing something unusual or
controversial.

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.

Thats not how precedents work and you dont know that he
did wrongly advise Liz anyway. For all you know he may well
have just told he that he was going to prorogue parliament
for 5 weeks.

That would avoid giving some future monarch, perhaps as yet unborn, an
excuse to try to reclaim some of the ancient powers of kings.

Liz doesnt have to accept all the advice she is given.
She is in fact free to say that would be unlawful.

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.

Its no news that legal parasites keep attempting to have more
say on what must be done, as Sumption has spelled out so clearly.

Instead, he seems intent on stirring up dissent in parliament,

Corse no other party leader has ever done anything like that, eh ?

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.

He knows that there is no chance of that, no matter how much he stirs.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 19:50:41 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


That is why Boris should resign immediately, thus setting a precedent for
any future PM who might wrongly advise the monarch.

That¢s not how precedents work

FLUSH troll****

The trolling senile asshole from Australia knows it ALL better ...ALWAYS!
And I mean REALLY always! LMAO

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

"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. She is still bound constitutionally to follow the advice
of the Prime Minister. 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,

She isnt constitutionally bound to take unlawful advice.

In fact she is constitutionally bound to refuse that advice.

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.

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. And wouldnt with an unlawful demand.

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?

He doesnt.

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.

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.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 19:43:31 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


She has the whole Privy Council at her disposal.

They don¢t advise on that issue.

Advising the monarch is what they're there to do.

I advise you to shut your stupid senile gob and stay out of matters that are
NONE of yours AT ALL, you anomalous trolling senile Australian pest!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 19:59:25 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile asshole's troll****

STILL teaching those stupid Brits how things REALLY are in the UK, you
anomalous senile asshole from Oz? LOL

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On 26/09/2019 10:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.Â* 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 ?

She has the whole Privy Council at her disposal.

They dont advise on that issue.

Advising the monarch is what they're there to do.

Not on that they dont.

Got a cite for that?

On 26/09/2019 10:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"nightjar" wrote in message
...
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:

That is why Boris should resign immediately, thus setting a precedent
for any future PM who might wrongly advise the monarch.

Thats not how precedents work and you dont know that he
did wrongly advise Liz anyway. For all you know he may well
have just told he that he was going to prorogue parliament
for 5 weeks.

That would avoid giving some future monarch, perhaps as yet unborn, an
excuse to try to reclaim some of the ancient powers of kings.

Liz doesnt have to accept all the advice she is given.
She is in fact free to say that would be unlawful.

And then accept it.

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.

Its no news that legal parasites keep attempting to have more
say on what must be done, as Sumption has spelled out so clearly.

Instead, he seems intent on stirring up dissent in parliament,

Corse no other party leader has ever done anything like that, eh ?

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.

He knows that there is no chance of that, no matter how much he stirs.

But in challenging the other parties to face the electorate in what the
country badly needs, ie a general election, he is building up his
'people against Parliament and the establishment' case. He will be able
to use that pretty effectively later.

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.

On Thursday, 26 September 2019 10:59:38 UTC+1, 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. She is still bound constitutionally to follow the advice
of the Prime Minister. 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,

She isnt constitutionally bound to take unlawful advice.

She isn't constitutionally bound to take any advice.

On 26/09/2019 09:39, nightjar wrote:


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.
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.



He doesn't want one before Oct 31st.
He wants to set the date after then.

In that way he stays PM but parliament is dissolved achieving what his
last attempt at shutting down parliament failed to do.

This why the HoC is not going to let him until an extension or a deal is
in place and then boris will oppose an election.

His hope is that the brexit deadline will pass and he will get all the
leave votes in the election. He knows the brexit party will get some of
them if brexit hasn't happened and he might lose.

On 26/09/2019 10:13, Norman Wells wrote:
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.Â* 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.

You misunderstand me. I was saying that, with all her experience, if she
refused to do as advised, on the basis that to do so was unlawful, it
would be because it was unlawful, not because she had made a mistake and
deprived the government of the ability to do something it was entitled to.

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 is exactly what this decision calls into question. It appears to
give her grounds to do otherwise.

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

Except that just about the only people NOT advising Boris that what he
was planning to do was unconstitutional were his band of extreme
Brexiteers, who seemed less interested in the legality of it than in
whether it would make it easier to get a no deal Brexit. That is not
taking the best advice available. It is taking the advice that agrees
with what you want and ignoring the majority view.


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?

No hindsight required. It was what most people were saying before he
went ahead.

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.Â* What Boris did wasn't therefore
clearly wrong when he did it; it was only subsequently decided that it
was.Â* And that doesn't make it a resigning matter in anyone's book.

The High Court decision that was reversed had nothing whatsoever to do
with whether or not Boris acted lawfully. The Court ruled that it was
not a matter that could be heard by the Courts (which the Supreme Court
specifically disagreed with). Having reached that decision, the High
Court did not go on to consider the legality of his action, so we will
never know what they might have decided if they had done so. Only the
Court of sessions actually ruled on his actions and that is the ruling
that the Supreme Court upheld.

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.

I'm not sure that a general election is going to achieve anything. Boris
is alienating the moderate Conservatives, the Brexit party will be
stealing votes from the Conservatives, Jeremy is alienating the Labour
Remain supports and, no matter how well they do, the LibDems, who have
already ruled out a coalition with either side, are unlikely to be more
than an also ran. The most likely result is another hung parliament.
However, if we do need one, it has to be after we have sought a further
extension from the EU, to avoid leaving by default.


--
Colin Bignell

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 10:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:


"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 ?

She has the whole Privy Council at her disposal.

They dont advise on that issue.

Advising the monarch is what they're there to do.

Not on that they dont.

Got a cite for that?

You're the one claiming that she always gets the privy council to
advise on which party gets to form govt and has to take that advice.

So you are the once that needs to provide a cite for that.

And you have to explain just how she gets just once
piece of advice given that both the Labour leader and
the Tory leader are privy councillors. Good luck with that.