IntenseDebate - impeachabull

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Maybe it's because he'... · 0 replies · +1 points

Don't forget our greatest Walter Mitty - David Davis.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Maybe it's because he'... · 2 replies · +1 points

I kind of agree. As someone who largely shares his instincts, he came across in the leadership debates as a bit of an intellectual charlatan. Desperate for you to think he's clever but with very little grasp of any meaningful policy issues.

Sadiq is a shoo-in for a second term, and this only makes it more likely.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - How the whip-deprived ... · 8 replies · +1 points

I think it's highly likely that the Government will lose the DUPs support for this deal at some point this month.

The letter makes it clear that the UK Government is willing to negotiae this plan further (i.e. it's not the "take it or leave it" deal that was briefed). The EU is sure to ask for more concessions on NI and the DUP (and a few of the hardest Brexiters (Steve Baker etc.)) will get cold feet.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Raab, Hancock, Gauke -... · 0 replies · +1 points

I think they've always asked and been denied. In fact, the Government had actually scheduled the Queen's Speech to be during their conference!

Yes, I don't know how it came about when the LDs emerged as the third party that they got a recess for conference. It would seem that the simplest convention would be to allow a recess for any party with more than ~30 MPs.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Raab, Hancock, Gauke -... · 2 replies · +1 points

TBF, we've always refused to allow a recess for the SNP one which (as much as I dislike them) seemed harsh when they're a significantly bigger party than the LDs.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - THE SUPREME COURT RULE... · 4 replies · +1 points

This is just irrelevant to the law of the land. It cannot be the case that if the opposition does not choose to hold a VoNC, then the Executive has carte blanche to curtail Parliament for as long as it wants, whenever it wants, and for whatever reason it wants.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - THE SUPREME COURT RULE... · 0 replies · +1 points

Where does the court rely on the 1628 prorogation? The 1679 prorogation and the actions of King Charles were one of the major reasons for the introduction of the Bill of Rights. Our constitution has changed hugely since it. It's not a 'precedent'.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - THE SUPREME COURT RULE... · 5 replies · +1 points

Yes, exactly. It's just irrelevant. If Parliament refuses to vote for a GE, it can't just give the Executive carte blanche to close it at will. It would be an absurd state of affairs if that was the case.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - THE SUPREME COURT RULE... · 0 replies · +1 points

It would be incredibly useful if the summary of the judgement was included in the article you're commenting on...

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - THE SUPREME COURT RULE... · 1 reply · +1 points

"The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end."

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with impeachabull

People I'm following

impeachabull