UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Celritannia]

The Queen was lied to by the PM, which is unconstitutional.

The Supreme court was made independent of political situations, so no.

When did the Prime Minister lie to the Queen? Either way, even if lying to the Queen is unconstitutional, the Queen still was fully within her rights to dissolve Parliament.

The Supreme Court indeed was made independent of political situations, so I understand, which means that the ruling entirely was outside of their jurisdiction, let alone the fact that again judicial review has no legal basis in the United Kingdom.

Despite the fact the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2010?
She was advised to dissolve it, she did not do it herself. That's how Constitutional Monarchies work, They have no real authority except through the Elected Government.

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.[2]

According to this, it was within their powers.

[Fartsniffage]

The Queen was lied to by the PM, which is unconstitutional.

The Supreme court was made independent of political situations, so no.

When did the Prime Minister lie to the Queen? Either way, even if lying to the Queen is unconstitutional, the Queen still was fully within her rights to dissolve Parliament.

The Supreme Court indeed was made independent of political situations, so I understand, which means that the ruling entirely was outside of their jurisdiction, let alone the fact that again judicial review has no legal basis in the United Kingdom.

You conflating government and Parliament. And it wasn't about dissolving Parliament, it was about proroguing it.

[Deacarsia]

No, I am referring to Parliament being stripped of the power to scrutinise trade deals negotiated by the government. If Parliament is truly sovereign of and supreme to all other governmental institutions this should not have happened.

I see. In this case, while the bill may be unwise, it is within the power of Parliament to grant the government the power to negotiate trade deals without scrutiny, especially since Parliament may restore scrutiny by repealing such law in the future.

Indeed, this argument proves too much, as membership in the European Union meant Parliament ceding far more power to an extranational entity, to the point of de facto loss of sovereignty, whereas this bill merely alters the process of trade deal negotiation (though again perhaps unwisely).

[Vassenor]

No, I am referring to Parliament being stripped of the power to scrutinise trade deals negotiated by the government. If Parliament is truly sovereign of and supreme to all other governmental institutions this should not have happened.

I see. In this case, while the bill may be unwise, it is within the power of Parliament to grant the government the power to negotiate trade deals without scrutiny, especially since Parliament may restore scrutiny by repealing such law in the future.

Indeed, this argument proves too much, as membership in the European Union meant Parliament ceding far more power to an extranational entity, to the point of de facto loss of sovereignty, whereas this bill merely alters the process of trade deal negotiation (though again perhaps unwisely).

So you're fine with Parliament ceding its sovereignty as long as it's in ways you approve of.

[Dumb Ideologies]

It's about time ya limies left the EU.

Now join us in creating the glorious Atlantic Union. It'll be just like the EU, except more Anglo.

Why would we want to?

Atlantis is a natural ally. Due to constant exposure to damp weather, us Brits have long had dormant gills. Together our alliance shall rule the waves once more.

[Gormwood]

I see. In this case, while the bill may be unwise, it is within the power of Parliament to grant the government the power to negotiate trade deals without scrutiny, especially since Parliament may restore scrutiny by repealing such law in the future.

Indeed, this argument proves too much, as membership in the European Union meant Parliament ceding far more power to an extranational entity, to the point of de facto loss of sovereignty, whereas this bill merely alters the process of trade deal negotiation (though again perhaps unwisely).

So you're fine with Parliament ceding its sovereignty as long as it's in ways you approve of.

Nothing like waking up to the NHS abolished and privatized as a precondition to trade with the US because Boris said Parliament isn't allowed to read the fine print.

[Deacarsia]

When did the Prime Minister lie to the Queen? Either way, even if lying to the Queen is unconstitutional, the Queen still was fully within her rights to dissolve Parliament.

The Supreme Court indeed was made independent of political situations, so I understand, which means that the ruling entirely was outside of their jurisdiction, let alone the fact that again judicial review has no legal basis in the United Kingdom.

You conflating government and Parliament. And it wasn't about dissolving Parliament, it was about proroguing it.

I apologize, I used the term dissolve when I meant prorogue, but my point still stands, as prorogation is a royal prerogative.

How exactly did I conflate government and Parliament?

[Deacarsia]

I see. In this case, while the bill may be unwise, it is within the power of Parliament to grant the government the power to negotiate trade deals without scrutiny, especially since Parliament may restore scrutiny by repealing such law in the future.

Indeed, this argument proves too much, as membership in the European Union meant Parliament ceding far more power to an extranational entity, to the point of de facto loss of sovereignty, whereas this bill merely alters the process of trade deal negotiation (though again perhaps unwisely).

So you're fine with Parliament ceding its sovereignty as long as it's in ways you approve of.

I never said that I approve this action. I simply pointed out that your argument does not hold water.

[Celritannia]

No, I am referring to Parliament being stripped of the power to scrutinise trade deals negotiated by the government. If Parliament is truly sovereign of and supreme to all other governmental institutions this should not have happened.

I see. In this case, while the bill may be unwise, it is within the power of Parliament to grant the government the power to negotiate trade deals without scrutiny, especially since Parliament may restore scrutiny by repealing such law in the future.

Indeed, this argument proves too much, as membership in the European Union meant Parliament ceding far more power to an extranational entity, to the point of de facto loss of sovereignty, whereas this bill merely alters the process of trade deal negotiation (though again perhaps unwisely).

No it did not.
Okay, let's look at how the EU functions.

MEPs are elected per region/province of each EU nation which vote on the behalf ot the citizens. Thus the elected UK MEPs vote for the UK citizens (and voted 95% of the time for EU legislation).

The EU Council is made up of each EU nations elected head of Government (or state in regards to 2 IIRC), and directs EU goals and priorities (the UK PM being a member of this).

The EU Commission is the EU civil Service, with one member from each EU nation's government.

The Council of the EU is made up of each EU members specific Secretary of State (For example all Secretaries of State for the Environment), and advise on policies of their department.

The UK has member in each part of the EU institutions to ensure it has a voice for the best deals.

[Fartsniffage]

You conflating government and Parliament. And it wasn't about dissolving Parliament, it was about proroguing it.

I apologize, I used the term dissolve when I meant prorogue, but my point still stands, as prorogation is a royal prerogative.

How exactly did I conflate government and Parliament?

An act of government can very much be challenged in the Supreme court, an act of Parliament can't. Requesting the prorogation was an act of government and very much one of the thing the Supreme court was set up to rule on.

[Vassenor]

So you're fine with Parliament ceding its sovereignty as long as it's in ways you approve of.

I never said that I approve this action. I simply pointed out that your argument does not hold water.

You also haven't criticised the action either and have instead attempted to justify it.

[Deacarsia]

It's about time ya limies left the EU.

Now join us in creating the glorious Atlantic Union. It'll be just like the EU, except more Anglo.

Why would we want to?

The same reason why the British Empire existed, though whether that was a good thing is neither here nor there.

[Celritannia]

You conflating government and Parliament. And it wasn't about dissolving Parliament, it was about proroguing it.

I apologize, I used the term dissolve when I meant prorogue, but my point still stands, as prorogation is a royal prerogative.

How exactly did I conflate government and Parliament?

Which the government demanded to get a majority, which even the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional.

[Celritannia]

Why would we want to?

The same reason why the British Empire existed, though whether that was a good thing is neither here nor there.

The British Empire was established through Occupying land, forced oppression, stealing resources, and subjugating local peoples.

The EU was founded for a greater bond between European nations willingly.

Two very different reasons

[Fartsniffage]

I apologize, I used the term dissolve when I meant prorogue, but my point still stands, as prorogation is a royal prerogative.

How exactly did I conflate government and Parliament?

Which the government demanded to get a majority, which even the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional.

Nope. They wanted it to prevent Parliament forcing them to request an extension after Boris pissed his majority up the wall. The new election required consent by the Labour party to get the needed two thirds majority.

[Celritannia]

Which the government demanded to get a majority, which even the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional.

Nope. They wanted it to prevent Parliament forcing them to request an extension after Boris pissed his majority up the wall. The new election required consent by the Labour party to get the needed two thirds majority.

Ah, fair enough.

[Deacarsia]

I never said that I approve this action. I simply pointed out that your argument does not hold water.

You also haven't criticised the action either and have instead attempted to justify it.

I am under no obligation of criticise or support the action. I only pointed out that your argument also invalidates membership in the European Union, which was a far greater cession of Parliamentary sovereignty than the trade bill.

[Vassenor]

You also haven't criticised the action either and have instead attempted to justify it.

I am under no obligation of criticise or support the action. I only pointed out that your argument also invalidates membership in the European Union, which was a far greater cession of Parliamentary sovereignty than the trade bill.

And what sovereignty did Parliament actually cede to the EU?

[Celritannia]

You also haven't criticised the action either and have instead attempted to justify it.

I am under no obligation of criticise or support the action. I only pointed out that your argument also invalidates membership in the European Union, which was a far greater cession of Parliamentary sovereignty than the trade bill.

Parliament was sovereign even as a member of the EU.

[Gormwood]

I am under no obligation of criticise or support the action. I only pointed out that your argument also invalidates membership in the European Union, which was a far greater cession of Parliamentary sovereignty than the trade bill.

And what sovereignty did Parliament actually cede to the EU?

Having to let the filthy brown people in.

[Fartsniffage]

And what sovereignty did Parliament actually cede to the EU?

Having to let the filthy brown people in.

We always had control of immigration from outside of the EU. Never lost it.

[Deacarsia]

The same reason why the British Empire existed, though whether that was a good thing is neither here nor there.

The British Empire was established through Occupying land, forced oppression, stealing resources, and subjugating local peoples.

The EU was founded for a greater bond between European nations willingly.

Two very different reasons

I was referring to the economic reasoning exclusively.

[Celritannia]

The British Empire was established through Occupying land, forced oppression, stealing resources, and subjugating local peoples.

The EU was founded for a greater bond between European nations willingly.

Two very different reasons

I was referring to the economic reasoning exclusively.

Moreover, the European Union was not founded for a “greater bond between European nations,” that is extremely naïve and idealistic thinking.

Your right, it also created a free trade agreement, freedom of movement, and other benefits.

[Deacarsia]

Which the government demanded to get a majority, which even the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional.

There is no judicial review in the United Kingdom.

[Fartsniffage]

I was referring to the economic reasoning exclusively.

Moreover, the European Union was not founded for a “greater bond between European nations,” that is extremely naïve and idealistic thinking.

Your right, it also created a free trade agreement, freedom of movement, and other benefits.

The whole thing started as a way to bind European countries so deeply that another major European war was impossible. It certainly managed to do that.