HARDTalk with Sir John Major

I have just found time to watch it. Bravo, Sir John!

To me it is very significant that Major spent seven years as PM actually dealing with the EU and knows just what he is talking about. Whereas Johnson's only previous involvement with the EU was as a reporter. During which time he made up stories about the EU; presumably for a bit of amusement.

Sir John didn't actually say that Johnson is talking off the top of his head (or out of another, lower, portion of his anatomy) but you could feel those unsaid words floating in the ether

I wonder how many tory MPs will take courage from his rallying call; "Country before Party"?

He has just been in the Today prig with Mishal Hussein. Full of admiration for him. Why was he so unappreciated when he was in office?
Is it the media’s apparently insatiable desire to not listen to what people say, but shoot them down at every opportunity?

John Major has gone up so much in my estimation. His speech used to be so stilted and nuanced, but since he’s shown his anger and passion over Brexit he has I proved immensely.

The gloves are off.

The difference in this man and the clown who proposes to be the next PM. There's no comparison ! It's now a complete madhouse with the lunatics taking over the asylum.

TBH I can’t really make up my mind whether JM has improved with age, or by comparing him to the current lot, anyone would be able to shine.

Just watched this. Probably the most honest interview I've seen in a very long time. I just wish that all politicians of whatever party would put "country before party" but sadly I think they're a very rare animal.

Yes, he was articulate and spoke in whole sentences - and even paragraphs. He answered questions directly and forthrightly. He remained consistently a Conservative, that old compassionate Conservatism, so long gone. I have never voted Conservative, but in the past one respected opposition politicians, even when one did not agree with them.

His gravitas and sheer intelligence, shone through compared with the make-weights in every party now.

John Major was perfectly happy to prorogue parliament in 1997 to delay the highly embarrassing report into the cash for questions scandal! The word hypocrisy comes to mind! Lucky no one sued him!

Agree with your post Jabberwok ??

Repeat from another thread.

John Major is a hypocrite over the prorogation of Parliament.

Absolutely agree Jabberwok & Pogs. The words pot and kettle spring to mind !

You are talking rubbish

So are you!!

John Major, who has absolutely nothing to lose, is telling the truth, talking sense, spelling out the facts in a way which the likes of Johnson, Hunt and Corbyn dare not do. We should listen to him.

John Major is a hypocrite over the prorogation of Parliament.

Why, POGS? His move was allowable under the constitution. Overriding our sovereign parliament appears not to be.

twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1148870904581185536

Try this if you don't care to follow links from twitter:

Start

Prorogation deprives Parliament of any ability to fulfil its deliberative and legislative function, and crucially to hold the government to account for its exercise of prerogative powers through committees, inquiries and ultimately through motions of no confidence. If ministerial advice were to trump these considerations, then it would in the words of Barber (speaking on royal assent) ‘(…) operat[e] against democratic values rather than upholding them. Rather than supporting parliamentary government, it would undermine it.’ Crucially, this view would likely be shared even by those who in the context of royal assent argue for a stronger role of ministerial advice. This is because their arguments are premised on Parliament’s ability to hold government accountable for tendering advice to withhold royal assent. With prorogation this crucial safeguard is not available: a Parliament in recess cannot move a motion of no confidence. As Anne Twomey concludes in her excellent book The Veiled Sceptre at least where a government has or is poised to lose the confidence of the House of Commons it is ‘(…) not entitled to remain in office and continue governing simply because it can exercise procedural powers to avoid proof of the loss of confidence in it.’ It would be hoped that this much at least is common ground regardless of one’s views on ministerial advice.

Parliament is a deliberative body and coming to a majority decision through compromise and debate are core to its constitutional and institutional roles. If preventing a debate and vote on bills amounted to constitutionally permissible grounds for prorogation, then Parliament’s role and relative strength in the constitutional framework would be greatly diminished in favour of an overpowering executive. The government could and certainly would veto legislation whenever it pleases and in time use the threat of prorogation to whip backbench and opposition MPs into submission. The better view is therefore that the Monarch should reject ministerial advice on prorogation under exceptional circumstances such as these and thus uphold the primacy of Parliament in the British constitution.

End

ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/04/03/stefan-theil-unconstitutional-prorogation/