What does Putin and LABOURS Blair have in common?.......

[CurtainRaiser]

Gremlin - 2022-03-01 10:09 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2022-03-01 9:37 PM

 

Gremlin - 2022-03-01 9:27 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2022-03-01 9:17 PM

 

Gremlin - 2022-03-01 6:23 PM

 

John52 - 2022-03-01 5:38 PM

 

Gremlin - 2022-03-01 11:18 AM

 

Huge difference in our political systems. Whatever you thought of Blair and any other PM - and in my case, that really is not a lot for all of them - at least we have the democratic ability to remove them via a vote.

 

.. until next time Johnson prorogues Parliament and, since we have no written constitution, can make one up to suit himself?

 

What an idiotic suggestion - UK law is based upon case law and presedents based upon case law. Hence the Law Lords etc. and how we exist without a written constitution.

 

I suggest you look it up before people start to believe your avatar is an accurate representation.

 

So when Johnson prorogued Parliament and was found to have broken the law what happened next?

 

Case law and the law of precedent applied as is the case within the U.K.

 

What on earth do you think happened then?

 

I know what happened, I'm asking what you think should happen when a PM lies to the monarch and breaks the law?

 

Well Tony Blair set the precedent - and look what happened to him…..

 

And he took us into an illegal war so similarities with Putin I might suggest. Boris tried a tactic that was not wise, certainly - but in itself - it is quite legal. It was the way it was used that was the issue.

 

But governments have previously used or tried to use prorogation as a means to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. And it is usually used when a new PM is selected within a sitting government. Boris tried to use this on the 28th August.

 

Boris was unwise to use this tactic given the situation the government, and the country was in. HOWEVER - prorogation IS a normal and not usually “illegal” parliamentary decision - so Boris, whilst being stupid at the time of trying it on - was not actually guilty of anything when advising the Queen of his intentions as prorogation in the specific circumstance of the time was not deemed unlawful until later.

 

At that point, on the 24th September, the prorogation was expunged from the record, deemed “null and void” and Parliament carried on.

 

What makes me chuckle is that a second prorogation came into effect on the 8th October and nobody felt that was “illegal”.

 

 

 

Name a time in recent history when a monarch has been asked to prorogate Parliament in anything other than the formal change of government process?