Boris Johnson asks Queen to suspend Parliament

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ScepticScot
Your're both right, in a sense.
Can we compromise and call it "passive selection"?
It's like a Darwinian process. The elected House of Commons is the environment which determines ("selects") which "mutation" (party) has the best chance of surviving in government.

I like the term passive selection.

I agree there is no formal vote, however the formation of a UK government depends on support within parliament. The idea a UK government is formed other than through parliament is simply wrong.

From gov.uk

The Prime Minister is the leader of Her Majesty’s Government and is ultimately responsible for all policy and decisions. The Prime Minister also:
oversees the operation of the Civil Service and government agencies
appoints members of the government
is the principal government figure in the House of Commons

Parliament does not select the Prime Minister and thus can not possibly select the Govt.

The majority party(s) in Parliament form the Govt. and the minority party(s) in Parliament form the opposition.
The govt and parliament are not the same things.

No one is claiming government and parliament are same thing.

The majority party forming the government means that parliament selects the government. Passively if you prefer, but they still select it.

We vote MPs into parliament, not parties.

These are the people who make up the top tier of our Govt today.
They run the govt and have departments that report into them or attend cabinet meetings.
Please let me know which ones were selected by Parliament.

Boris Johnson MP 2019–present
Dominic Raab MP 2019–present
Sajid Javid MP 2019–present
Priti Patel MP 2019–present
Michael Gove MP 2019–present
Robert Buckland MP 2019–present
Stephen Barclay MP 2018–present
Ben Wallace MP 2019–present
Matt Hancock MP 2018–present
Andrea Leadsom MP 2019–present
Elizabeth Truss MP 2019–present
Amber Rudd MP 2018–present
Gavin Williamson MP 2019–present
Theresa Villiers MP 2019–present
Robert Jenrick MP 2019–present
Grant Shapps MP 2019–present
Julian Smith MP 2019–present
Alister Jack MP 2019–present
Alun Cairns MP 2016–present
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park PC 2016–present
Nicky Morgan MP 2019–present
Alok Sharma MP 2019–present
James Cleverly MP 2019–present
Rishi Sunak MP 2019–present
Jacob Rees-Mogg MP 2019–present
Mark Spencer MP 2019–present
Geoffrey Cox QC MP 2018–present
Kwasi Kwarteng MP 2019–present
Oliver Dowden MP 2019–present
Jake Berry MP 2019–present
Esther McVey MP 2019–present
Jo Johnson MP 2019–present
Brandon Lewis MP 2019–present

They are appointed by the prime minister who is only prime minister by commanding a majority in parliament.

If you don't think the government is formed by parliament then who do you think does do it?

Yes they are appointed by the Prime Minister, no selection from parliament at all.
The govt and parliament, like I said, are different things. You say you understand that but it's no evident that you do.
The leader of the majority party - selected by the people in an election - is appointed as the Prime Minister by the Queen. Not by Parliament.
A Party can change their leader. If they do the new leader is responsible for selecting the Govt. Not parliament.
The majority party is NOT the Govt. The Govt. is the Prime Minister, his or her cabinet and the people in their departments across the country.

We don't vote for leaders or parties in UK general elections.

A concept you seem to have forgotten since page 7 on this thread when you agreed with it.

MPs select the PM who then forms the government. He can be leader of the largest party but if he can't get support from his own parties MPs then he won't be PM.

I didn't say we voted for the leader of a party. I said the leader of the majority party - selected by the people.
The people DO vote for a party as candidates are attached to a party in most cases.
From parliament.uk

The leader of the winning party is appointed as Prime Minister and chooses other party members to work in the Government with them - as Cabinet ministers and junior ministers.

At no time does parliament ever select the govt. The govt, separate to parliament, is selected by the Prime Minister.

Bottom line - you can't name a single member of the current Cabinet or junior ministers, the top tier of our Govt., who were selected by Parliament. Nor is any Prime Minister ever selected by Parliament. A Prime Minister is selected by party in their own leadership contest/decision.

The majority party is selected by the people. Their leader becomes Prime Minister, appointed by the Queen and invited to form a Govt.
If there is no majority, the leader of the party with most votes gets to form a coalition govt and is appointed Prime Minister and invited by the Queen to form a govt.
Parliament play no role in either the selection of a Prime Minister or his/her selection for Govt positions.
They CAN remove a Prime Minister by a vote of no confidence in the Hosue. But if they do that, they have no role in selecting the next Prime Minister.

No, We don't vote for a party we vote for an individual. We might base our vote on what party they are in buy once ejected they are free to act on their own discretion.

If a hundred Tory MPs defect to labour then Labour will form the government. Regardless of what party you think you voted for.

ETA there is no requirement that the PM is a party leader.

The leader of the party with the most votes is invited by the Queen to form a Govt and is appointed as Prime Minister.
Parliament play no role in that appointment. So, yes, party matters immensely /exclsuively in who is appointed PM and who gets to form a Govt.
If 100 Tory MP's defected and became Labour, then Labour would be the majority party and their leader would be invited by the Queen (eventually) to form a govt and would be appointed PM. In your scenario Parliament would have no say in who the Labour leader was. That would be up to the Labour Party. It's not a parliamentray decision. Following that parliament would have no say in who the new PM selected to form the new Govt.

People decide who the majority party is based on who they vote for.
The majority party decide who their leader is and who will be PM
The PM forms the Govt.
i.e. Parliament not involved.

There is no requirement that the PM is leader of a party. Its the ability to command a majority in Parliament that matters.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Your points of argument seem to have narrowed.
Your latest one is mainly wrong. An individual who garners a majority of support in the House from MPs can not be made Prime Minister by parliament. You see Parliament simply don't select either the PM or any members of Govt. First the sitting Govt would have time to try and build a majority, then there would be a general election... after which, you guessed it.. the leader of the party with a majority would be invited to form a Govt.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your points of argument seem to have narrowed.

Your latest one is mainly wrong. An individual who garners a majority of support in the House from MPs can not be made Prime Minister by parliament. You see Parliament simply don't select either the PM or any members of Govt.

The PM is whoever ( in practise an MP) who can command majority support on parliament. They not only select him but continually keep him selected. Parliament therefore selects the PM.

Nothing to do with bring party leader or people voting for parties as you have claimed.

If you want to quibble that they select who selects the government rather than directly feel free. It changes nothing about the point that parliament removing the Government of the day is not a coup.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your points of argument seem to have narrowed.

Your latest one is mainly wrong. An individual who garners a majority of support in the House from MPs can not be made Prime Minister by parliament. You see Parliament simply don't select either the PM or any members of Govt.

The PM is whoever ( in practise an MP) who can command majority support on parliament. They not only select him but continually keep him selected. Parliament therefore selects the PM.

Nothing to do with bring party leader or people voting for parties as you have claimed.

If you want to quibble that they select who selects the government rather than directly feel free. It changes nothing about the point that parliament removing the Government of the day is not a coup.

As long as Parliament go through the correct process, it's legal.

Reality is that people vote for party, represented by an individual, and it is undeniably true that the leader of the party with the majority will be invited by the Queen to form a Govt. Fact.

It's also a fact that parliament do not select the Govt, the PM does.

Now, where I will concede some ground, is in highly unusual and very rare circumstances that a Govt is overthrown and any MP could theoretically become PM and maintain a majority support and thus continue as PM, though even in those circumstances the very likely outcome is a general election where, you guessed it, the leader of the majority party would be invited to form a govt. and be appointed as PM. Even this theoretical does not make a statement like 'it's parliaments role to select the Govt' true. That statement is false in every regard, without any quibbling required.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your points of argument seem to have narrowed.

Your latest one is mainly wrong. An individual who garners a majority of support in the House from MPs can not be made Prime Minister by parliament. You see Parliament simply don't select either the PM or any members of Govt.

The PM is whoever ( in practise an MP) who can command majority support on parliament. They not only select him but continually keep him selected. Parliament therefore selects the PM.

Nothing to do with bring party leader or people voting for parties as you have claimed.

If you want to quibble that they select who selects the government rather than directly feel free. It changes nothing about the point that parliament removing the Government of the day is not a coup.

As long as Parliament go through the correct process, it's legal.

Reality is that people vote for party, represented by an individual, and it is undeniably true that the leader of the party with the majority will be invited by the Queen to form a Govt. Fact.

It's also a fact that parliament do not select the Govt, the PM does.

Now, where I will concede some ground, is in highly unusual and very rare circumstances that a Govt is overthrown and any MP could theoretically become PM and maintain a majority support and thus continue as PM, though even in those circumstances the very likely outcome is a general election where, you guessed it, the leader of the majority party would be invited to form a govt. and be appointed as PM. Even this theoretical does not make a statement like 'it's parliaments role to select the Govt' true. That statement is false in every regard, without any quibbling required.

So despite earlier statement you really do think we directly elect a PM. You can't have it both ways based on what argument you think you are trying to make.

Glad you have at least acknowledged the talk of a 'Coup' is incorrect. The whole point that was being made.

originally posted by: smurfy

The remainers, may be a lobby, but the least they are likely to get, entitled even, would have been some kind of deal along with the rest.

You cannot be serious !!!!

How an Irish journalist/observer warned in 2013 how the pro-EU elite would seek to block Brexit

In November 2013, Robert Oulds of the Bruges Group invited me to speak at a conference in London. He asked me because I had been for some years accredited as a journalist to the EU institutions in Brussels, writing in the Brussels Blog for the Mail Online. More, being Irish, I had particular experience in the matter of EU referendums. Ireland had just finished some years which became known as “the never-endums.” I’d been in the middle of it all. I had some warnings for Britain.
The never-endums in Ireland began in June 2001, when the Irish voters rejected the Nice Treaty – that’s the treaty which readied the EU for new member states from Eastern Europe. The Irish voters recognised that the treaty marginalised the power of smaller states. They voted No. The shock was fierce in Brussels, and Irish politicians, to their shame, went to the European Council to make apologies for their own people. The Irish were forced to vote again. The firepower and Project Fear of the political parties, and some gestures and garnishes from the EU, made sure this time the people gave the right answer.

Then, in June 2008, there was another referendum, this one on the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish were the only people in the EU to be allowed a vote, and they voted No by 53.4% to 46.6%. That was a larger margin than Leave won in the British 2016 referendum. Brian Cowen was then the Irish Prime Minister. I had to watch him at the European Council, shivering like a whipped spaniel, promising he would reverse the vote if only the EU would give him something, anything, he could take home and present as a concession. The EU finally promised to tack on a few paragraphs to a future accession treaty with Croatia that only repeated what was already in the European treaties – that Ireland could be neutral, that abortion was Ireland’s business and that powers of direct taxation remained with member states.

None of that had anything to do with what was in the Lisbon Treaty. But it was enough. In October 2009, in a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, held as the terrifying Irish property and bank crash was underway, the Irish voted Yes. The vote allowed the treaty to come into force across the EU.
MY PATRIOTISM HAS NEVER FULLY RECOVERED FROM THE HUMILIATION

Most of you believe that, if you get an In/Out referendum, and the Out vote wins, then – hurrah! – free at last. Don’t kid yourselves. This is where I stop speaking as someone from Brussels and start speaking as someone from Ireland. You need to remember that in the EU, a Yes vote is forever. A No vote is only ever temporary. Trust me on this one,
The EU has forced the Irish through this more than once. Therefore, it is naïve for any of you to think that, if you get a vote in a referendum to leave the EU, then that is the battle won. It is not. It is just the end of the phony war.

I am here to tell you today is that what was done to the Irish after they voted No to the Lisbon Treaty will be done to the British if they vote No to the EU in 2016. I’m going to give you details of how the Irish government and the EU elite worked together to overturn the democratic Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. What they did to the Irish,the EU elite will do to the British.

If you were Irish, you would know the rest. The government will commission an opinion poll to find out what the British people ‘really ’meant by their vote. The government will use taxpayers’ money to pay a polling company to find out what the taxpayers meant when they voted to get Out of the EU. Which is itself outrageous. But the Irish government did exactly that. The Government in effect said to their own electorate: ‘You are far too stupid or reckless to be trusted with a ballot paper.’ Which is of course the attitude of the EU elite to voters, why they are squeezing democracy out of every part of the EU. The Irish government commissioned a poll after the Irish voters rejected the Lisbon Treaty. The Cowen Government said they wanted to find out the “real reason” the Irish people voted No to Lisbon. It was all of course just a way to find an excuse to run the referendum again.

British people can expect the same kind of fraud if they succeed in voting to leave the EU. They will be patronised, and frightened, by government insistence that they did not know what they were doing.

What you can do about it – well, that is up to you. You can either be disgraced as a nation, or you can fight.

FULL TEXTbrexitcentral.com...


Is ^^^That^^^ an organisation that you want us to stay in

I certainly dont!

a reply to: eletheia

The EU has a way of getting what it wants. Amazingly, the most influential politicians in the EU don't hold formal positions with the executive of the Union. That alone should raise serious questions.

Cheers

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: uncommitted

I think it might be about seeing the UK being FCUKed to please the egos of a fairly pathetic minority that would rather see the whole of the UK suffer just so that they think they have proved their point by forcing us into a no deal state.

I'd say Mrs May , remainers in Parliament and the EU forced us into the position we are in , the EU have had no need to negotiate due to May's weakness and Parliaments stubbornness , they wrote the agreement and sent May to sell it.

Now they're faced with the unthinkable.

Ah, it's the guy who thinks praising terrorists is good diplomacy criticising someone else's diplomacy. How ironic.

The unthinkable is the far right smugly sinking the UK while an ineffectual far left throws its toys out of the pram.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: uncommitted

I think it might be about seeing the UK being FCUKed to please the egos of a fairly pathetic minority that would rather see the whole of the UK suffer just so that they think they have proved their point by forcing us into a no deal state.

I'd say Mrs May , remainers in Parliament and the EU forced us into the position we are in , the EU have had no need to negotiate due to May's weakness and Parliaments stubbornness , they wrote the agreement and sent May to sell it.

Now they're faced with the unthinkable.

Ah, it's the guy who thinks praising terrorists is good diplomacy criticising someone else's diplomacy. How ironic.

The unthinkable is the far right smugly sinking the UK while an ineffectual far left throws its toys out of the pram.

Nope, consolidation of corporate power and influence is the problem, the left and right crap is nothing more than a ruse, we the people have no power to enact change, however we are sold the lie that we can and do through voting.

It's pretty ingenious if you think about it, trick the people into thinking they are the ones steering the ship when in reality they are all just shoveling coal into the burners to propel the ship forward.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your points of argument seem to have narrowed.

Your latest one is mainly wrong. An individual who garners a majority of support in the House from MPs can not be made Prime Minister by parliament. You see Parliament simply don't select either the PM or any members of Govt.

The PM is whoever ( in practise an MP) who can command majority support on parliament. They not only select him but continually keep him selected. Parliament therefore selects the PM.

Nothing to do with bring party leader or people voting for parties as you have claimed.

If you want to quibble that they select who selects the government rather than directly feel free. It changes nothing about the point that parliament removing the Government of the day is not a coup.

As long as Parliament go through the correct process, it's legal.

Reality is that people vote for party, represented by an individual, and it is undeniably true that the leader of the party with the majority will be invited by the Queen to form a Govt. Fact.

It's also a fact that parliament do not select the Govt, the PM does.

Now, where I will concede some ground, is in highly unusual and very rare circumstances that a Govt is overthrown and any MP could theoretically become PM and maintain a majority support and thus continue as PM, though even in those circumstances the very likely outcome is a general election where, you guessed it, the leader of the majority party would be invited to form a govt. and be appointed as PM. Even this theoretical does not make a statement like 'it's parliaments role to select the Govt' true. That statement is false in every regard, without any quibbling required.

So despite earlier statement you really do think we directly elect a PM. You can't have it both ways based on what argument you think you are trying to make.

Now you are just lying.
I'll take that as a consession that your argument has been fully dismantled.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your points of argument seem to have narrowed.

Your latest one is mainly wrong. An individual who garners a majority of support in the House from MPs can not be made Prime Minister by parliament. You see Parliament simply don't select either the PM or any members of Govt.

The PM is whoever ( in practise an MP) who can command majority support on parliament. They not only select him but continually keep him selected. Parliament therefore selects the PM.

Nothing to do with bring party leader or people voting for parties as you have claimed.

If you want to quibble that they select who selects the government rather than directly feel free. It changes nothing about the point that parliament removing the Government of the day is not a coup.

As long as Parliament go through the correct process, it's legal.

Reality is that people vote for party, represented by an individual, and it is undeniably true that the leader of the party with the majority will be invited by the Queen to form a Govt. Fact.

It's also a fact that parliament do not select the Govt, the PM does.

Now, where I will concede some ground, is in highly unusual and very rare circumstances that a Govt is overthrown and any MP could theoretically become PM and maintain a majority support and thus continue as PM, though even in those circumstances the very likely outcome is a general election where, you guessed it, the leader of the majority party would be invited to form a govt. and be appointed as PM. Even this theoretical does not make a statement like 'it's parliaments role to select the Govt' true. That statement is false in every regard, without any quibbling required.

So despite earlier statement you really do think we directly elect a PM. You can't have it both ways based on what argument you think you are trying to make.

Now you are just lying.
I'll take that as a consession that your argument has been fully dismantled.

You can take it how you like but you are still wrong.

You can only form a government with support of parliament. We do not elect a government we elect MPs.

Your argument that parliament has virtually nothing to do with forming the government is nonsense.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your points of argument seem to have narrowed.

Your latest one is mainly wrong. An individual who garners a majority of support in the House from MPs can not be made Prime Minister by parliament. You see Parliament simply don't select either the PM or any members of Govt.

The PM is whoever ( in practise an MP) who can command majority support on parliament. They not only select him but continually keep him selected. Parliament therefore selects the PM.

Nothing to do with bring party leader or people voting for parties as you have claimed.

If you want to quibble that they select who selects the government rather than directly feel free. It changes nothing about the point that parliament removing the Government of the day is not a coup.

As long as Parliament go through the correct process, it's legal.

Reality is that people vote for party, represented by an individual, and it is undeniably true that the leader of the party with the majority will be invited by the Queen to form a Govt. Fact.

It's also a fact that parliament do not select the Govt, the PM does.

Now, where I will concede some ground, is in highly unusual and very rare circumstances that a Govt is overthrown and any MP could theoretically become PM and maintain a majority support and thus continue as PM, though even in those circumstances the very likely outcome is a general election where, you guessed it, the leader of the majority party would be invited to form a govt. and be appointed as PM. Even this theoretical does not make a statement like 'it's parliaments role to select the Govt' true. That statement is false in every regard, without any quibbling required.

So despite earlier statement you really do think we directly elect a PM. You can't have it both ways based on what argument you think you are trying to make.

Now you are just lying.
I'll take that as a consession that your argument has been fully dismantled.

You can take it how you like but you are still wrong.

You can only form a government with support of parliament. We do not elect a government we elect MPs.

Your argument that parliament has virtually nothing to do with forming the government is nonsense.

You previous concession was enough.
No need to start changing the words to create a new argument.
I can only hope you will make use of the new knowledge you have recieved.
Peace.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: uncommitted

Did you not read the post from UK not really the truth but I like to think I am? That person suggested it would be an army but not in uniform - best asking that person.

Not in one uniform. But, "Command and control"?

It's that time of day they feed you isn't it?

No response, just gratuitous insults, is it? Nice.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your points of argument seem to have narrowed.

Your latest one is mainly wrong. An individual who garners a majority of support in the House from MPs can not be made Prime Minister by parliament. You see Parliament simply don't select either the PM or any members of Govt.

The PM is whoever ( in practise an MP) who can command majority support on parliament. They not only select him but continually keep him selected. Parliament therefore selects the PM.

Nothing to do with bring party leader or people voting for parties as you have claimed.

If you want to quibble that they select who selects the government rather than directly feel free. It changes nothing about the point that parliament removing the Government of the day is not a coup.

As long as Parliament go through the correct process, it's legal.

Reality is that people vote for party, represented by an individual, and it is undeniably true that the leader of the party with the majority will be invited by the Queen to form a Govt. Fact.

It's also a fact that parliament do not select the Govt, the PM does.

Now, where I will concede some ground, is in highly unusual and very rare circumstances that a Govt is overthrown and any MP could theoretically become PM and maintain a majority support and thus continue as PM, though even in those circumstances the very likely outcome is a general election where, you guessed it, the leader of the majority party would be invited to form a govt. and be appointed as PM. Even this theoretical does not make a statement like 'it's parliaments role to select the Govt' true. That statement is false in every regard, without any quibbling required.

So despite earlier statement you really do think we directly elect a PM. You can't have it both ways based on what argument you think you are trying to make.

Now you are just lying.
I'll take that as a consession that your argument has been fully dismantled.

You can take it how you like but you are still wrong.

You can only form a government with support of parliament. We do not elect a government we elect MPs.

Your argument that parliament has virtually nothing to do with forming the government is nonsense.

You previous concession was enough.
No need to start changing the words to create a new argument.
I can only hope you will make use of the new knowledge you have recieved.
Peace.

If that makes you happy who am I to rob you of small pleasures.

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: odzeandennz

Stuff the popcorn, I need a cold beer!

Ummm...cold beer...Sacrilege...

As I quaff a room temperature stout...

YouSir

You drink warm Guinness?!!!!!!!

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: uncommitted

I think it might be about seeing the UK being FCUKed to please the egos of a fairly pathetic minority that would rather see the whole of the UK suffer just so that they think they have proved their point by forcing us into a no deal state.

I'd say Mrs May , remainers in Parliament and the EU forced us into the position we are in , the EU have had no need to negotiate due to May's weakness and Parliaments stubbornness , they wrote the agreement and sent May to sell it.

Now they're faced with the unthinkable.

Ah, it's the guy who thinks praising terrorists is good diplomacy criticising someone else's diplomacy. How ironic.

The unthinkable is the far right smugly sinking the UK while an ineffectual far left throws its toys out of the pram.

Who is this "far right" you speak of?

a reply to: uncommitted

Ah, it's the guy who thinks praising terrorists is good diplomacy criticising someone else's diplomacy. How ironic.

Ah, it's the guy who likes to throw smears at members because they don't agree with their point of view , how unsurprising you should open your post in such a way.

The unthinkable is the far right smugly sinking the UK while an ineffectual far left throws its toys out of the pram.

Except this isn't a left or right issue , it's an issue of control over our own destiny which is something we don't have being tied to the United States of Europe.

a reply to: uncommitted

think it might be about seeing the UK being FCUKed to please the egos of a fairly pathetic minority that would rather see the whole of the UK suffer just so that they think they have proved their point by forcing us into a no deal state. At some point, not this year, not next year, maybe not for a few years, even the stupid will realise this was a total FCUK up.

What minority? The majority voted to leave. Did you miss that bit?

Interesting article from the BBC answering a few questions:

www.bbc.co.uk...