Lilyflo
Royal Highness
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1,882
- City
- England
- Country
- United Kingdom
There are some claims that the Defence Secretary's admission as to the real reasons for proroguing parliament mean that the Queen has been misled.
I’ve drawn this admission to the attention of our legal team. Defence Secretary backs up what we contend - that #prorogation of Parliament is for an improper purpose & therefore unlawful
I think people use social media to vent. So it's to be expected many of the comments are negative. But I'm surprised and troubled that so many people misunderstand the Queen's role and blame her in addition to the PM. Having entangled her in this controversy it would nice if Johnson would publicly clarify the Queen was only performing her constitutional duty when she assented to his request.
It’s not up to the Queen to decide whether a reason to prorogue Parliament is ‘legitimate’. That’s for her ministers to decide. HM’s role is to follow the advice of her PM.
The Member of Parliament for Edinburgh SW has referred the matter to a legal team.
The action of closing the session of parliament and arranging a new session in itself is a regular occurrence , the Queen would follow the same procedure. Normally they are just along the Mall, but they needed to go to Balmoral to see her. A new session opens with the state opening , it also allows new legislation The problem here is the timing, so close to brexit, also the length of the closure, It is preventing debate or at least reducing the amount if time available for debate. That is the issue up for debate not the suspension of parliament as such.
having a rule cemented that the UK can only leave the European Union with a deal.
The BBC reported the legal argument is technically at the validity of the advice given by the Privy Council / PM to the Queen.
As the power and decision to prorogue Parliament is entirely in the Queen's gift it is not challenging that she did wrong but that she prorogued parliament on inaccurate or deceitful advice.
A summary of today's proceedings before Lord Doherty in ?????? ? ???????? ??????? ??? ????????, prepared by a Session Cases reporter, can now be downloaded here:
An extract:
A motion for interim orders was heard by Lord Doherty, a judge of the Court of Session, in Edinburgh in the petition brought by Joanna Cherry QC MP and others for judicial review of the UK Ministers' advice to HM Queen to prorogue the UK Parliament. (...)
The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the court, and argued that the advice given was unlawful, and that it was the court's duty to provide an effective remedy in order to ensure that the rule of law was maintained.
On itself the Queen did no wrong but it is feed for thought that she accepted a possible inaccurate or deceitful advice. This can be read as: the royal prerogative is up for grabs. The Queen has allowed it to be misused.
On itself the Queen did no wrong but it is feed for thought that she accepted a possible inaccurate or deceitful advice. This can be read as: the royal prerogative is up for grabs. The Queen has allowed it to be misused.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Section 5 [Convening Parliament]
(1) The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
As the Queen does not have the power to refuse, the misuse and responsibility of possible inaccurate and/or deceitful advice falls on Boris Johnson.
I think that is a bit too quick. A majority in both Houses of the Sovereign Parliament has voiced opposition to the Government's attempt to silence Parliament for five weeks in such most decisive and profound circumstances.
It is not only Her Majesty's Government. It is also Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. She could have requested: "Opposition must be heard". I feel the Queen was just stuck in her standard mode:
nod - agreed
nod - agreed
nod - agreed
But these are excetional times. The Queen could have felt in her bones: "Hey wait a minute, I am asked to agree with a halt to all parliamentary proceedings in this most hectic political and social situation ever in My long Reign?" Now it very much looks as just the occasional burp after lunch at Balmoral:
nod - agreed.
I think that is a bit too quick. A majority in both Houses of the Sovereign Parliament has voiced opposition to the Government's attempt to silence Parliament for five weeks in such most decisive and profound circumstances.
It is not only Her Majesty's Government. It is also Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. She could have requested: "Opposition must be heard". I feel the Queen was just stuck in her standard mode:
nod - agreed
nod - agreed
nod - agreed
But these are excetional times. The Queen could have felt in her bones: "Hey wait a minute, I am asked to agree with a halt to all parliamentary proceedings in this most hectic political and social situation ever in My long Reign?" Now it very much looks as just the occasional burp after lunch at Balmoral:
nod - agreed.
It is not true that a majority in the House has voiced opposition to the prorogation as no vote on the matter has been taken in the House yet.
Again, as long as the House doesn’t declare that it has lost confidence in the government and has confidence in someone else, to be the PM, there is no reason for the Queen not to follow her PM’s advice. It is not up to the Queen to guess what the majority of the House thinks based on what a few outspoken MPs say on the BBC, nor is it up to the Queen to make political calls on her own.
Again , thank God that Elizabeth II and not Charles is the monarch at this particular moment .
Imho this Boris dude is right... - but this is also a situation with some dangers for the democracy. The prime minister and the people against the parliament - from such constellations starts the end of a democracy...