Parliament to be prorogated

[CryingSheep]

Still not legally binding...

[The Dogs Bollocks]

Still not legally binding...

Your right but it's about honour and integrity. I stand by my last paragraph with the proviso that any MP who doesn't vote in accordance with their or their parties 2017 election pledge on Brexit resigns immediately as an MP. Let's force the two faced lying b*stards to make a decision.

[Mordac]

Yes and no.

It was raised in Parliament that normal referendum safeguards should be added. David Liddington argued against this for the precise reason that it was advisory.

Typically for our politicians they were rather two-faced. Politically (in Parliament) it was very well k own that this was an advisory referendum, without any of the normal safeguards of a binding referendum. Outside to the public they didn’t use the words “advisory” or “binding” all that much, but they did use phrases like “we will implement what you decide”, etc.

This is part of the cause of the current mess - once the referendum was over, the two camps split into “advisory” (ie from inside Parliament) and “will of the people” (from outside Parliament).

Whichever way it goes there’s a lot of water gone under the bridge since then and any argument about it being advisory has long since sailed.

The most important thing now is to secure what is best for the country. So, keeping it on topic, do you think that prorogating Parliament and setting a precedent that the Government can ignore the sovereignty of Parliament is best for the country?

And if so, will you still think that this precedent is great under, say, a Labour Government?

The government "chose" to accept the result, and made implementing it their policy. The previous PM lost her job because she came back with a terrible treaty, and couldn't get it through Parliament. The current PM has pretty much staked his reputation and career on achieving Brexit on 31 Oct.

My worry is that he is dissolving Parliament so he can put the May/Barnier treaty (having tweaked it slightly) before MPs in the new session.

I actually think "No Deal" is less likely to happen, as MPs will fold and vote it through this time, if faced with the alternative of no deal. Don't forget, Boris has to achieve Brexit, and if he can get Parliament to approve what they think is "the lesser of two evils", he'll have done what he said he'd do.

The most important thing now is to secure what is best for the country. So, keeping it on topic, do you think that prorogating Parliament and setting a precedent that the Government can ignore the sovereignty of Parliament is best for the country?

And if so, will you still think that this precedent is great under, say, a Labour Government?

It's not a precedent, the PM has always been able to choose the timing of a Queens Speech. Tactically it's a bit sneaky (or quite clever, take your pick) but it does give Parliament the final say, albeit probably not with the choices MPs would have necessarily wanted. It's still not what one could call "ignoring the sovereignty of Parliament".

The procedure of prorogation existed before Wednesday, so the question of whether a Labour Government doing the same would be any better or worse is completely irrelevant.

[sasguru]

My worry is that he is dissolving Parliament so he can put the May/Barnier treaty (having tweaked it slightly) before MPs in the new session.

Well done. Although slow on the uptake as usual, you got there in the end!

[scooterscot]

Given that leading Brexit-backers argued that leaving the EU would restore parliament's sovereignty... it's hypocrisy on a gold-plated standard.

[CryingSheep]

Your right but it's about honour and integrity. I stand by my last paragraph with the proviso that any MP who doesn't vote in accordance with their or their parties 2017 election pledge on Brexit resigns immediately as an MP. Let's force the two faced lying b*stards to make a decision.

I don't understand this argument! When you vote for a MP are you expecting that MP to vote and decide for what he believes is the best for its constituency and country or blinding follow the "will of the people" that emerged from an advisory referendum covered in lies and half trues!?

[The Dogs Bollocks]

I don't understand this argument! When you vote for a MP are you expecting that MP to vote and decide for what he believes is the best for its constituency and country or blinding follow the "will of the people" that emerged from an advisory referendum covered in lies and half trues!?

No that MP will almost always vote in line with his/her party whip. The values/needs of his/her constituency/country have nothing to do with it when under the whip.

When not under the whip I would expect an MP to put the values/wishes of his/her constituency above their own beliefs. They were voted in by their constituents to serve them in public office. That is democracy for you.

[meridian]

The government "chose" to accept the result, and made implementing it their policy.

Can’t disagree there. Not just government, but Parliament by approving to invoke A50.

Policy or not, our representative Parliament made the decision to go ahead with it.

The previous PM lost her job because she came back with a terrible treaty, and couldn't get it through Parliament.

Whether it’s terrible or not is a matter of opinion. An alternative viewpoint is that it fits the red lines that the U.K. set.

Those red lines were the first step away from the referendum campaign. Leave promoted a “Norway” future, which at a stroke was immediately negated by ending FoM as a red line.

The fact that she couldn’t get the deal through Parliament lies at the feet of the Brexiters, who insisted all along that negotiations and the UKs position should be a secret. The reason why Barnier got the deal through 27 other parliaments is because he was open and honest with them about what he was negotiating. The U.K. preferred style over substance and then refused to accept reality when the veil was removed.

The current PM has pretty much staked his reputation and career on achieving Brexit on 31 Oct.

My worry is that he is dissolving Parliament so he can put the May/Barnier treaty (having tweaked it slightly) before MPs in the new session.

Quite. And if Parliament then accept the WA, we are out. As promised by our Parliamentary representatives. Whether you like the way that we are out is not material, that wasn’t what you voted for.

It's not a precedent, the PM has always been able to choose the timing of a Queens Speech. Tactically it's a bit sneaky (or quite clever, take your pick) but it does give Parliament the final say, albeit probably not with the choices MPs would have necessarily wanted. It's still not what one could call "ignoring the sovereignty of Parliament".

The procedure of prorogation existed before Wednesday, so the question of whether a Labour Government doing the same would be any better or worse is completely irrelevant.

Choosing the timing of a Queens Speech is not the reason for the closure and you’re a fool if you think it is.

Constitutionally, the Government makes policy decisions and those decisions are held under scrutiny by Parliament. Reducing or removing the amount of time that Parliament can scrutinise Government and provide direction is dodgy at best.

Prorogation has existed before, but never been used for so long for the underlying purpose of pushing through a contentious decision that impacts the entire country. Be careful of what precedents you’re supporting.....

[Whorty]

No that MP will almost always vote in line with his/her party whip. The values/needs of his/her constituency/country have nothing to do with it when under the whip.

When not under the whip I would expect an MP to put the values/wishes of his/her constituency above their own beliefs. They were voted in by their constituents to serve them in public office. That is democracy for you.

What you're saying then is all those Tory MPs who voted against May's deal (who was their leader), to leave on 31st March, should be sacked as traitors to their party?

FFS, there are some idiots on here

[Old Greg]

Your right but it's about honour and integrity. I stand by my last paragraph with the proviso that any MP who doesn't vote in accordance with their or their parties 2017 election pledge on Brexit resigns immediately as an MP. Let's force the two faced lying b*stards to make a decision.

I hope you don't mean a manifesto pledge, which is a manifesto for if in government.