Gransnet forums

News & politics

Government watch

(208 Posts)
Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 07:15:37

Given the fact that our democratic ability to ask urgent questions in parliament has been stripped from us, I think notice should at the very least be made of those issues that are popping up and for which the government does not have to answer.

The first

Tom Watson

Given Cummings' focus on data science in the Vote Leave campaign the sudden urgent need for big data collection is extremely concerning. We need immediate clarity about how citizens' data will be protected and won’t be misused for party political purposes.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 07:17:19

John Hyde
Had it confirmed that neither the Domestic Abuse Bill nor the Divorce Bill were subject to a last-minute carry-over motion. Both will have to be started from scratch if they are brought back in the next parliament.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 07:20:41

Prof Tanja Bueltmann
Sep 10
Parliament shut down.
MPs silenced and prevented from doing their job.
Prevented from representing our interests while an unelected Prime Minister is led by a man in contempt of Parliament.
These are extraordinary times.
And this is not what a democracy looks like.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 07:32:40

Cummings using the U.K. government information service for his own ends

HM Treasury
Duty-free shopping with the EU is coming back, if we leave without a deal.

People travelling to EU countries will be able to buy beer, spirits, wine and tobacco without duty being applied in the UK.

Anna Soubry MP

This is wrong

* it’s misleading
* it’s propaganda
* it’s an abuse of impartial civil servants
* it’s a waste of tax payers money

If Parliament was sitting MPs would challenge & scrutinise this Government propaganda.

They shut down Parliament but they won’t shut us up

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 07:34:50

Emily Thornberry

Why is Cummings ordering civil servants to centralise a massive amount of user data as a "top priority"? In the normal course of events, if a secret memos like this came to light, questions would be asked in Parliament, but we have been shut down.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 07:40:28

No yellowhammer yet been given out for scrutiny.

To coin a much hacked phrase..

Is the government FRIT?

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 07:54:21

Totally dishonest from
on #R4 that leaving the EU means we can implement policies to encourage 'global talent' to move to and contribute to the UK economy.

We've always been able to do that, it was xenophobic Tory hostile environment policies that prevented it.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 08:58:36

Why not publish Are you FRIT?

Why won't you publish Yellowhammer?"
"Because if we do, we won't get Brexit."
"Why not?"
"The impacts are so awful, the public would tell us not to do it."
"So why are you doing it?"
"Because it's what the public wants."

ayse Wed 11-Sep-19 09:01:28


Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 09:01:29

Stop Cummings harvesting your data. This is how. I’ve done it really easy

Jo Maugham QC

If you want to make it more difficult for Dominic Cummings and The Charlatan to scrape data from Government sources to help them turn our democracy into a Turkey-on-the-Thames can I suggest you turn off cookies here?

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 09:09:16

They take us for fools

norman smith
Don't panic. Govt signals won't publish Yellow Hammer No deal documents cos they might "serve to concern people" says

Sussexborn Wed 11-Sep-19 09:18:47

What time do you get up WW? You have been busy.

Urmstongran Wed 11-Sep-19 10:04:11

Gosh WWmk2

It’s certainly got you wound up.

Strange how 4 days short in Parliament (taken overall in the situation) is suddenly so important to the Remainers. They’ve had more than 3 years to discuss Brexit!!

It’s time to move to the next base.

This time was always coming. Let’s get it done. And I’m not stupid - I know it’s the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end.

I feel for those involved after all their hard work in trying to get important bills passed before Parliament was prorogued. But surely the same thing will have happened (to some bills) previously, at the end of every Parliament session? In fact, apparently this has been the longest sitting in a very long time and I expect those bills got further along than would ordinarily be the norm.

GracesGranMK3 Wed 11-Sep-19 10:10:33

Brilliant idea Whitewave and thank you for all the starter posts. I have never got to grips with twitter so it's good to have the feedback from it.

AdeleJay Wed 11-Sep-19 11:39:53

Thank you Whitewave. Strange & troubling times we live in. confused

NotSpaghetti Wed 11-Sep-19 12:02:46

Don’t think it’s the 4 days per se Urmsongran that would ordinarily be the issue. It’s the timing that’s concerning and the way important info is being shut down.

CrazyGrandma2 Wed 11-Sep-19 12:04:03

Thank you Whitewave.

mcem Wed 11-Sep-19 12:08:42

And now we know that prorogation is illegal!
Queen misled as the only purpose of suspension was to 'stymie Parliament'.

seadragon Wed 11-Sep-19 12:12:06 Breaking news.

GracesGranMK3 Wed 11-Sep-19 12:22:11

You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick UG. Parliament was prorogued for five weeks not four days. It would have been perfectly possible for the conference's would go ahead without a suspension. Hard work but very possible and what all parliament, except the Great Johnson party, were prepared to do.

[sigh] but I have no doubt you will keep repeating it.

Maremia Wed 11-Sep-19 13:14:49

Thanks Whitewavemark 2. A lot to take in there. Interesting about the big data. Wasn't there some scandal about Cummings and Cambridge Analytica, where the information was used illegally to target and influence 'Leave' inclined voters? Was Cummings not found to be in contempt of Parliament? Why is he allowed to have so much power now? Keeping us in the dark at this vital time.

humptydumpty Wed 11-Sep-19 13:27:32

Maremia I agree, what is going on? I seem to recall from watching the docu-drama that his inspired idea was to get contact details of people who were not on the electoral register, and therefore were outside the radar of the remain campaign; so not Leave inclined voters per se, but people who were probably feeling ignored/disenfrachised etc. and who heard only one argument, which doubtless played into the idea that voting Leave was the way to get their grievance out...

Amagran Wed 11-Sep-19 13:56:52

Very many thanks Whitewavemark2. You are doing a fantastic job in keeping us all aware of the abuse of power and undermining of democracy. I cannot understand why so many people think that calling Johnson and Cummings out is a Leave v. Remain issue. No decent person should find acceptable the flagrant abuse of power and the silencing of opposition (with a small o) in unprecedented ways which we are currently witnessing. It is absolutely not simply a Remain v. Leave issue.

icanhandthemback Wed 11-Sep-19 14:44:31

We only know that prorogation is illegal with one court, we still have to wait for The Supreme Court to make up their minds.
Personally I don't think that a lot can be gained by Parliament sitting until we have a deal that can be voted on. However, I probably wouldn't have prorogued Parliament nor would MP's have had a holiday. We really have to get this sorted out one way or another.

NotSpaghetti Wed 11-Sep-19 14:45:05

You are right of course GracesGranMK3 - there were suggestions in the house about sitting through the conferences - but to take the extra days in order to firmly shut people up and stop difficult questions is particularly Machiavellian.

Labaik Wed 11-Sep-19 14:53:42

Parliament isn't just about Brexit; other important things have been sidelined or dropped altogether; this is why Jess Phillips is furious that the Domestic Violence Bill has now got to go back to square one.

mcem Wed 11-Sep-19 15:15:28

A great deal of business could have proceded!
Important legislation - dealing with abortion law in NI or the domestic violence bill - could have continued.
Committees could have met and working parties could have continued.
There's a lot of business that would have been carried out behind the scenes and away from the cameras.

M0nica Wed 11-Sep-19 16:10:45

What is happening in Parliament, or rather what is not happening is far more important than any petty bickering about Brexit.

As in Venezuela, we are seeing democracy being manipulated by a legally elected leader to make it close to a dictatorship: withdrawing the whip from party members, many of them longstanding members who have a history of party loyalty, then closing the Parliament for prolonged periods.

More worrying in our case because it is clear that the Prime Minister is following the instructions of an unelected eminence gris, who is the real power behind the throne.

We have always prided ourselves on the independence of our judiciary and in a case as we have now they are our one protection from an elected dictatorship and while I can well understand the unwillingness of the English judiciary to act on this matter, they can be seen as too (physically) close to government, the Scottish judiciary have both a physical and psychological speration from the seat of government and can look at thins differently.

The best argument against Scottish independence yet!?!

Maremia Wed 11-Sep-19 16:18:03

Thanks humptydumpty for that fact check.

GracesGranMK3 Wed 11-Sep-19 16:23:14

I agree with you on that NotSpaghetti.

lemongrove Wed 11-Sep-19 16:32:21

I disagree Monica that the independence of the judiciary is any less in England than in Scotland.
Saying that they have a psychological separation from the seat of government, so will see things differently ( i.e.*correctly*) is just as bad as anyone saying ‘ they are Scottish, so what should we expect!’ Both views are wrong.
Judges look at things differently..... the Supreme Court will have the final say, and I do hope we won’t have any ‘ the judges are in the governments pockets’ comments if they do find no legal wrongdoing.
Interpretation of ‘intent’ is a very difficult matter.

graykat Wed 11-Sep-19 16:39:36

I find it appalling and totally hypocritical that those Leavers who misled the country by bleating on about the sovereignty of Parliament are now defending closing it down so an unelected elite can force through an unwanted damaging Brexit. This is totalitarianism. If the left had done this, the squeals from the right would be heard in space.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 16:42:26

Well prorogation didn’t last long did it? We are now into illegality territory.


I welcome the Court's judgement.

No one in their right mind believed Boris Johnson's reason for shutting down Parliament.

I urge the Prime Minister to immediately recall Parliament so we can debate this judgement and decide what happens next.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 16:46:25

Andrew Adonis

Question for Johnson on his ‘people’s PMQs’: why did you lie to the Queen?

lemongrove Wed 11-Sep-19 16:48:04

Yes, he did say that (Starmer) but nothing will happen until the final judgement takes place.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 16:48:30

Hilary Benn

This is unprecedented. Parliament must now be recalled.

GillT57 Wed 11-Sep-19 16:49:52

Thank you Whitewave I have gone to the link and turned off my cookies. I am appalled that some people are so desperate for Brexit that they are prepared to throw democracy to the four winds and even more saddened by the members of the electorate who have accepted this. Irrespective of one's stand on Brexit, this surely should be a cause for concern.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 16:50:24

Jo Maugham QC

We believe that the effect of the decision is that Parliament is no longer prorogued.

M0nica Wed 11-Sep-19 16:52:14

The independence itself is not less lemongrove , but the psychological independence is less. They are too close to the action. Until 2009 the House of Lords fulfilled the role of supreme court. and the Lords of Appeal automatically were in the House of Lords. 2009 is only 10 years ago.

All the main courts are in London and, for barristers, who until recently provided all our judges, the Inns of Court where they train are in London, as are many barristers.

When power in this country is so often accused of being London centric I can see that the London-based English judiciary, given their reputation for independence would be much more wary about being pulled into national governance disputes. The English judges decided that the case was not justiciable (capable of challenge) in the courts because to seek the prorogation of Parliament is political matter. They then granted a leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the subject.

I think the way it is working out is the best way - that the challenge comes from the Scottish Courts not the English Courts.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 16:54:51

Adrian Schiller

My government commissioned it, my parliament has ordered its release, my taxes paid for it, it concerns my future and that of my family, friends, neighbours and compatriots.

So, I’d really like to read the Operation #Yellowhammer report.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 16:56:32

Jenni Russell
Terrifying. Scotland's court rules Johnson lied to Queen about real reason to prorogue Parliament. No 10 briefs: BJ may defy law to deliver Brexit. Johnson deliberately undermining faith in institutions that bind us. Easy to erode; tough to rebuild.

lemongrove Wed 11-Sep-19 17:03:20

What really matters is the final say, by the Supreme Court,
And I don’t believe it is any less ‘anything’ than the Scottish Court.
Why should there be a challenge from the Scottish judges
( or that it’s seen as a good thing?)
Their interpretation of the law is one thing, the Judges in the Supreme Court may decide the same way, or not, but that doesn’t mean anything, other than it’s their judgement.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 17:13:14

It couldn’t be made more clear that the judges consider that Johnson lied to the Queen.

The role of parliament to scrutinise government. Suspending parliament means government can't be scrutinise and is unlawful.

This is a finding of fact by the appeal court that Johnson has misused prorogation and lied to the Queen.

This is what the Supreme Court must judge on.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 17:14:09

No sworn affidavit by any member of the government, suggesting that they knew they acted unlawfully.

Heartbeats Wed 11-Sep-19 17:16:38

Surely if this was a true democracy the UK would have already left the EU?
If I remember correctly the majority vote was to Leave!??

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 17:19:23

What on Earth has that got to do with this act of illegality heartbeat?

Whataboutery won’t wash I’m afraid

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 17:23:23

Suggestion by SNP deputy leader at Westminster, that No 10 have made statements that impugn the judiciary.

If this is true then are they suggesting that the courts can no longer be trusted.

The government is disgusting and dangerous.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 17:28:51

Jess Phillips Esq., M.P.

My name is Jess, my occupation is MP and my town is Birmingham. My question is "why have you failed domestic violence victims by cancelling the bill that would have helped them in order to get yourself out of the trouble of people like me asking you questions."

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 17:30:32

Good bye Johnson

BC Politics
"If the government had misled the Queen about the reasons for suspending Parliament... it would then be the moment for Mr Johnson to resign"

Ex-Tory MP Dominic Grieve says PM's position may be "untenable", as court rules suspension of Parliament unlawful

Labaik Wed 11-Sep-19 17:32:32

I've only just seen his 'question time'; can't believe what I'm seeing. Illegally closes down parliament to do it. What has this country come to...

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 17:33:36

David Gauke

It is neither responsible nor acceptable for 'sources in No 10' to accuse judges of political bias. Criticism of this type from within Government undermines the independence of the judiciary and, therefore, the rule of law.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 17:34:51

labaik I’m not on Facebook. What there any significant Qs and As?

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 17:35:57

MrsAitchBee 🔶 🎪⚫️⭐️

Replying to
How bloody dare they not let us see what damage and impact brexit will have on us. Why should we be expected to blindly just sit back and let it happen to us! This government is so morally corrupt that they would still let a no deal damage us

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 17:37:25

(((Dan Hodges)))

No.10’s attitude is increasingly “it doesn’t matter what the law says. It doesn’t matter what the judges say. We can ignore it and it won’t matter because we’ll be vindicated at the ballot box”. Regardless of your view of Brexit, we are getting into very dangerous territory.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 17:38:35

I’m waiting for the first court case to be brought against the government/Johnson for this illegality.

Labaik Wed 11-Sep-19 17:51:59

I only watched it for a minute or so and, seeing some of the replies from his adoring public made my comment and switched it off. I still can't believe it...I've spent the afternoon watching a home swap programme on catchup to have a break from politics. It's part of Cummings 'Boris and the people against nasty parliament' campaign. I'm truly shocked. If it wasn't so frightening it would be funny...

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 18:05:34

I wonder if parliament could be opened by the MPs? Committee meetings etc. Simply ignore an illegal parliament.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 18:08:46

Prorogation! Not parliament.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 18:51:48

Jolyon Maugham QC - Parliament doesn't need to be recalled as it's never been suspended after today's ruling.. so parliamentarians should be knocking on the door of the Palace of Westminster...

varian Wed 11-Sep-19 19:06:16

Her Majesty was ill advised and misled by 3 Privy Councillors.

They did not apparently have to give her a reason for the advice to prerogue parliament.

The Privy Council is required to advise the Monarch in the best interests of the nation and instead they advised her in what they considered to be the best interests of the Conservative party.

This is outrageous.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 19:43:27

Charlie Falconer

Lord Chancellor should put a stop to this nonsense immediately. Upholding the rule of law means ensuring government does not attack the judges for decisions the government doesn’t alike. Appeal if you don’t like it, don’t undermine the judges as if they were politicians.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 19:45:03

Jess Phillips Esq., M.P.

Boris Johnson has lied to every other woman in his life, why he'd make an exception for the queen seems unlikely.

Fennel Wed 11-Sep-19 21:32:53

I've just been watching a replay of the proceedings following prorogation (on BBC ) .
The main person in the HoL read out a statement from the Queen about 'my government' and what they'd achieved and plan to do.
Poor old Liz, at her age she must be thoroughly exhausted with politics. I wonder if Johnson actually spoke to her personally about his reason for prorogation, or to one of her aides? After that he and Carrie spent the night there.
We haven't heard much about that.
Personally, I'm so upset and disgusted with all the dishonesty, by self seeking politicians and their sycophants.
All I can do is pray that those who still have moral values will be able to hold out.

varian Wed 11-Sep-19 21:41:54

Aparently BJ did not have to give HM any reason for proroguing parliament.

He just sent three Privy Councillors to tell her that was what he wanted and HM has to act on the assumption that these PCs are honourable and advising what is in the nation's best interest.

However these PCs should not have been trusted, as the highest Court in Scotland has decided and so HM was misled.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 21:46:37

Going on behind closed doors

Tom Newton Dunn
Excl: Nigel Farage has told Boris Johnson his price for an election deal - a free run for the Brexit Party in 80-90 seats
* Farage thinks he’d win “40 to 50” of them now
* Also wants WA replaced by 2 year standstill
* ‘scoping’ conversations have started

Fennel Wed 11-Sep-19 21:54:08

Farage is a real chancer - at the moment his party has at the most one seat. Though to be fair, they had a bigger proportion of votes. He wants proportional representation.

varian Wed 11-Sep-19 21:55:58

One seat? Is that Kate Hoey?

HootyMcOwlface Wed 11-Sep-19 22:12:09

A poster on mumsnet has linked this document

mcem Wed 11-Sep-19 22:34:46

Thanks for that.
Doesn't make comfortable reading, does it?
Any brexit Polyannas around to assure us that it's all fine?
Or spout that other mantra that we should just wait patiently and not panic?

Labaik Thu 12-Sep-19 00:40:34

We'll be fine with this lot in charge....

Whitewavemark2 Thu 12-Sep-19 06:21:01

an Howes #FBPE 🎪🎪 #StopBrexit #Sodem AKA Mack

Anyone read the letter from Gove to Grieve?

Interesting that he cites European Convention on Human Rights as a reason for not giving the balance of info requested

Oh the irony...

Linda369 Thu 12-Sep-19 06:22:06

If anyone has not watched ‘The Great Hack’ do, especially if you are worried about how our data was gathered without our knowledge.

Whitewavemark2 Thu 12-Sep-19 06:24:25

It is reported that Johnson is trying to find a way to get the rebels back onside.

His strategy is quite extraordinary.

Q. Do we believe he has one?

A. Of course not 😄

crystaltipps Thu 12-Sep-19 06:29:29

A rubber stamp could do the work of the Queen. She serves no political purpose.

Amagran Thu 12-Sep-19 10:02:34

Labaik! grin

GracesGranMK3 Thu 12-Sep-19 10:27:30

An interesting piece this morning, in an email from the Economist. It was describing the new Margaret Attwood sequel - The Testaments which, it claims, "explores the workings of repression.

Referring back to the Hand-maids Tale it declares "described the new regimes brutality from Offred's perspective only, showing how a politician's promise of a better future "never means better for everyone ... it always means worse, for some."

At the moment we are just uncovering the "some" it will be worse for if we leave without a deal I feel.

humptydumpty Thu 12-Sep-19 11:05:55

Boris has denied lying to the Queen - that's all right then, the Scottish court must have been mistaken.

Labaik Thu 12-Sep-19 11:17:49

He doesn't know what lying is; lies are just words that come out of his mouth like a sort of verbal diarrhoea.

varian Thu 12-Sep-19 11:26:44

BJ could easily prove he didn't lie if he published the internal communications relating to proroguing as he has been directed to do by parliament.

If he has nothing to hide why does he not do this?

He also had the opportunity to provide a sworn statement to the Scottish Court but declined, presumable because he did not want to perjure himself.

Perhaps someone has taken him to one side and explained to him what lying is.

Fennel Thu 12-Sep-19 12:34:38

He gets round it by the fact that he didn't personally speak to the Queen. his aides did, and probably to her aides.

Pantglas1 Thu 12-Sep-19 13:23:39

And now NI have muddied the waters.......

GracesGranMK3 Thu 12-Sep-19 14:41:24

Thu 12-Sep-19 11:26:44 - So true varian

Whitewavemark2 Thu 12-Sep-19 15:57:23

Something to be understood

Prof. Colin Talbot
Let's be very clear.

No judge has accepted Johnson's excuse for Proroguing Parliament for 5 weeks. None. Nobody seriously believes this was about anything but silencing Parliament over Brexit.

The only dispute is whether or not the Courts can intervene in this process.

absthame Thu 12-Sep-19 16:23:00

Once his lips move what then comes out is a lie, time after time. Once he starts to write, he pours out more lies and yet his family believe him.......they don't! I am surprised, families normally stick to........ahhh I see, they trust not is words or judgement either grin. Well at least I'm not alone gringrin

Pantglas1 Thu 12-Sep-19 17:15:36

So it’s [email protected]&NI 2. Scotland 1 - what happens next?

varian Thu 12-Sep-19 18:35:11

The UK Supreme Court will decide on Tuesday.

BJ has today denied that he lied to the queen - but how do we know that this habitual liar is not lying again?

Whitewavemark2 Thu 12-Sep-19 21:24:28

The man who has been sacked twice for lying, denies lying to the Queen.

Whitewavemark2 Thu 12-Sep-19 21:26:58

As an aside

Johnson has just given the go ahead to allow 64000 badgers to be killed.

Science has shown it doesn’t work, but they are doing it anyway as a sop to the farmers.

Labaik Thu 12-Sep-19 21:42:07

I think it's not happening in Derbyshire because there was a campaign to stop it [but I need to double check]. Which goes to show everyone can influence events if they make the effort.

growstuff Thu 12-Sep-19 22:43:53

Hmm...there are going to be some interesting conversations over the breakfast table:

winterwhite Thu 12-Sep-19 23:19:34

Thanks again Whitewall for starting this and your initial posts.
A lot of people are talking of the Supreme Court 'deciding' between the decisions of the English and Scottish courts, but technically they're ruling on the appeal against the Scottish judgement aren't they? If they uphold the appeal that would amount to the same thing of course, but since Gina Miller didn't appeal against the decision of the English court that decision doesn't have to be revisited. Is that right? Does that make any difference re the paperwork to be waded through and so on?
Lots of people on here have expertise in all this. Please could someone clarify things?

gmarie Thu 12-Sep-19 23:34:12

From today's NY Times here in the States:

varian Fri 13-Sep-19 07:00:22

Thom Brooks , professor of law and government, writes in The Independent on why Johnson should resign.

MaizieD Fri 13-Sep-19 09:53:31

but technically they're ruling on the appeal against the Scottish judgement aren't they?

They're not, as I understand it, ruling on the latest Scottish judgement but on the initial judgements in the Scottish and English courts that the issue was not subject to the law (justiciable) because it was a political rather than a legal issue.

This is one take on the question

Notwithstanding all of the sound and fury in the surrounding political context, neither of these questions, it seems to me, raise especially controversial or difficult legal or constitutional issues. The first question — whether the stymying of parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive forms one of the purposes to which the power can lawfully be put — falls to be answered by reference to fundamental constitutional principle. As Jake Rowbottom has noted, one such principle is the representative nature of democracy in the UK and institutional arrangements, including Executive accountability to Parliament, that are thereby necessitated. Recourse to such principle in determining the limits of the prorogation power should hardly be a controversial step. Nor should the conclusion that it is incompatible with the nature of parliamentary democracy in the UK for the Executive to have a legally unfettered power to suspend the operation of Parliament for the purpose of shielding the Executive from parliamentary scrutiny.

From a long and quite complex lawerly blog which is worth wading through:

Urmstongran Fri 13-Sep-19 10:39:02

Perhaps Remainers would be happy if they put HM in the dock and ask her to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth ....

James2451 Fri 13-Sep-19 11:38:45

I find it very difficult to comprehend the thinking behind those who believe that Parliament should not be sitting to finalise acts of Parliament. In addition to also scrutinising the executive who are proving to be acting in rather deceitful ways to prevent essential information getting into the public domain. This continuous efforts of deception is not the British way, though it might be the coming norm if you went to Eton.

Labaik Fri 13-Sep-19 12:00:24

I can't comprehend a lot of things these days; this is why I have to take time out occasionally to clear my head. It's like one of those nightmares where you're screaming but no one can hear you...

winterwhite Fri 13-Sep-19 12:00:50

Many thanks, Maizie. That does clarify things.
IMO it's a great pity that the Queen's advisers didn't advise the PM's advisers not to suspend parliament in the first place.
Even if suspension can't be declared "illegal" because no law covers the circumstances, it must have been obvious that it would give rise to challenges that can't easily be refuted, putting the crown in an awkward position. How did it ever get this far?

Pantglas1 Fri 13-Sep-19 12:02:14

The Scream by Edvard Munch, Laibach, springs to mind!

Labaik Fri 13-Sep-19 12:08:22

Yes; it does sum things up doesn't it. I bought DD an inflatable 'Scream' to take to University many years ago; I wish she still had it so I could borrow it back !