Wouldn't the Remainer anti-proroguers be just a tad more convincing if many of them were not simultaneously scouring the statute book for procedural wheezes which might allow them to get their own way?
Spare me the hypocrisy of the extreme Remoaners who would use the Queen to block no deal
Ross Clark
The Telegraph
19 July 2019
I happen to agree with those who think it would be an outrage for the new Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament in the autumn in order to prevent MPs blocking a no-deal Brexit – something that the Conservative leadership frontrunner Boris Johnson hasn’t said he will do but hasn’t exactly ruled out either.
When you have campaigned to save British democracy from interference by unelected EU officials it would be pretty bizarre to try to thwart that democracy.
But wouldn’t the anti-proroguers be just a tad more convincing if many of them were not simultaneously scouring the statute book for procedural wheezes which might allow them to get their own way? If proroguing Parliament would be an outrage I don’t know what word there is left to describe the scheme dreamed up by Tory MPs to make a humble address to the Queen, requesting that Her Majesty toddle off to the next EU summit, above the heads of her own government, to ask for an extension to article 50.
If there is one principle which has guaranteed the stability of British democracy while countries around us have descended into bloody revolution and fascism, it is that the monarch keeps his or her nose out of politics. Surely even the worst sufferers from Brexit Derangement Syndrome can see that.
Maybe the plotters would just like to answer this: how would they have reacted had the Queen – who you may remember was reported privately to sympathise with the case for leaving the EU – had concluded her Christmas message before the referendum with the words “and hopefully, in the coming year, my people will vote to become a sovereign nation again and sock it to those ghastly foreign bureaucrats who want to regulate the size of our corgis. God bless each and every one of you”?
For the past three years we have had no end of attempts by Remainers to fiddle with the constitution, run off to the courts and find other underhand methods of overturning the 2016 referendum result.
We’ve had John Bercow cite 17th Century precedent to block a vote on Theresa May’s deal.
We’ve had a crowd-funded effort to prosecute Boris for misconduct in public office over claims made in the referendum campaign.
We have had an attempt to have the Brexit result declared null and void in the High Court. We’ve had calls for people of low intelligence to be barred from voting. We have had John Major threaten to start a judicial review to prevent a no-deal Brexit.
And we have had Gina Miller try to drag the government through the courts at every opportunity, treating Britain as if it were a kritarchy – the rule of judges. She won her case demanding that Parliament vote to enact Article 50, but when it did vote for that very thing, with a no-deal departure as the default option, she didn’t like that either.
The Remainer hold-outs behind these schemes are no great sticklers for democracy or constitution. They will happily use whatever underhand method they can, if it helps them get their way – but then scream blue murder when Brexiteers respond in kind.
Much as I disagree with the idea of proroguing Parliament to stop a rebellion against the government, there are a few MPs who would have no-one to blame but themselves were they were to be hoist on their own procedural petards.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...reme-remoaners-would-use-queen-block-no-deal/
Spare me the hypocrisy of the extreme Remoaners who would use the Queen to block no deal
Ross Clark
The Telegraph
19 July 2019
I happen to agree with those who think it would be an outrage for the new Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament in the autumn in order to prevent MPs blocking a no-deal Brexit – something that the Conservative leadership frontrunner Boris Johnson hasn’t said he will do but hasn’t exactly ruled out either.
When you have campaigned to save British democracy from interference by unelected EU officials it would be pretty bizarre to try to thwart that democracy.
But wouldn’t the anti-proroguers be just a tad more convincing if many of them were not simultaneously scouring the statute book for procedural wheezes which might allow them to get their own way? If proroguing Parliament would be an outrage I don’t know what word there is left to describe the scheme dreamed up by Tory MPs to make a humble address to the Queen, requesting that Her Majesty toddle off to the next EU summit, above the heads of her own government, to ask for an extension to article 50.
If there is one principle which has guaranteed the stability of British democracy while countries around us have descended into bloody revolution and fascism, it is that the monarch keeps his or her nose out of politics. Surely even the worst sufferers from Brexit Derangement Syndrome can see that.
Maybe the plotters would just like to answer this: how would they have reacted had the Queen – who you may remember was reported privately to sympathise with the case for leaving the EU – had concluded her Christmas message before the referendum with the words “and hopefully, in the coming year, my people will vote to become a sovereign nation again and sock it to those ghastly foreign bureaucrats who want to regulate the size of our corgis. God bless each and every one of you”?
For the past three years we have had no end of attempts by Remainers to fiddle with the constitution, run off to the courts and find other underhand methods of overturning the 2016 referendum result.
We’ve had John Bercow cite 17th Century precedent to block a vote on Theresa May’s deal.
We’ve had a crowd-funded effort to prosecute Boris for misconduct in public office over claims made in the referendum campaign.
We have had an attempt to have the Brexit result declared null and void in the High Court. We’ve had calls for people of low intelligence to be barred from voting. We have had John Major threaten to start a judicial review to prevent a no-deal Brexit.
And we have had Gina Miller try to drag the government through the courts at every opportunity, treating Britain as if it were a kritarchy – the rule of judges. She won her case demanding that Parliament vote to enact Article 50, but when it did vote for that very thing, with a no-deal departure as the default option, she didn’t like that either.
The Remainer hold-outs behind these schemes are no great sticklers for democracy or constitution. They will happily use whatever underhand method they can, if it helps them get their way – but then scream blue murder when Brexiteers respond in kind.
Much as I disagree with the idea of proroguing Parliament to stop a rebellion against the government, there are a few MPs who would have no-one to blame but themselves were they were to be hoist on their own procedural petards.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...reme-remoaners-would-use-queen-block-no-deal/
