Boris to prorogue again - rule by government without Parliament Watch

Vinny C
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 weeks ago
#41
The court have asked for written reassurance he will not. How to stop the Hulk? Seems a few middle aged hippies in blue berets does it.
0
reply
josh75
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Blah blah blah. Nothing concrete. No facts, no information, just a wall of text. Come back with some actual substance next time.
Nothing ive said requires a link to anything.
0
reply
username1421435
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#43
Report 4 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
51% of only 72% of the population voted to leave. That isn't enough for union action for christs sake, never mind a monumental decision like this. Quite frankly, half of this country wanted to leave, half wanted to remain. Add to that the lies that were told on the leave side, and you have not got a mandate for the 'will of the people'.
Then please, do go ahead and give me a numerical percentage which you deem appropriate to be labelled the 'will of the people'

The turnout is irrelevant. The point is you're always going to have people moaning whatever the outcome, and the fact still remains, there is a majority. If a general election happened and the government won 51% of seats and the opposition had 49% of seats, and each MP followed the whip then laws are going to get passed based on what the government want. Unless you're trying to tell me that if 51% of seats were occupied by the government they wouldn't have the right to pass any laws based on that sole 2% majority because they didn't have the 'will of the people'?
0
reply
username1421435
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by Zoqua)
I am aware of how the system works. Of course that doesn't mean the system is right (but that's not for this forum). I didn't say I thought Boris Johnson was unelected, I just implied that such a small minority of the population made him Prime minister that I do not see why he alone (without Parliament) should be making the most important decision made in this country this century.

The reason why the general election is being blocked is quite a simple one, that Boris Johnson cannot be trusted to give us a deal unless it is put into law, which should be, and is, an absolute priority for the opposition.
I apologise, I thought you were of the opinion that he is unelected - however, your statement of "yes, he was, by less than 1% of the population" is still just plain wrong.

And, as the Supreme Court is currently deciding - it may well be his right do that as the prime minister of the country - the entire constitution of the United Kingdom works on the basis of precedence. It has always - and please correct me if I'm wrong - been the prerogative of the prime minister to prorogue parliament. You might not like it, you might not see why he should be able to, but that is entirely subjective and, in my opinion, irrelevant when considering the constitution.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by barnetlad)
This is about the law and whether or not it allows Mr Johnson to go to the Queen. On this point I think he will be successful sadly, whatever the reasons for him proroguing the House. He is not willing to make a statement to the Court which I assume is so he cannot be held in contempt and be sent to prison (which would be unkind to other prisoners).

I would support the Queen sacking Mr Johnson as is permitted, especially as he has no majority in the House of Commons. Perfectly legal in my view, even though it has not been done for about 200 years.

Mr Johnson is the worst person to hold the office of Prime Minister at least since Lord North in the 18th century, if not of all time.
Jeremy does have a lot to answer for though. A more patriotic opposition leader would by now have (if they realised their own unpopularity) given way to a leader that the now significant opposition majority could rally around to take a new government to the Queen. It's bizarre and ridiculous under our system that a PM can continue with a 'majority' in the negative-40s. We need a new cross-party government. In the not too distant future, people are going to wonder why that didn't happen and will turn their fury on Comrade Jezza and others.
0
reply
Le Male
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
If house prices crash, the people who can least afford houses will still be unable to buy, because their incomes will slump still further due to unemployment. London does undeniably have a horrible housing situation for millions, but you'll find that Brexit won't make a scrap of difference to that.

By the way, heroic Boris, defender of the Britons against the evil Europeans - when he was Mayor of London, his response to the housing crisis was to fly to China and Brazil and act as a salesman for purveyors of ultra-high net worth housing in new blocks in Chelsea. So much for caring for the ordinary people.
The first part is false, globalism has created a disconnect between the cost of housing and income which has never been as vast as at any era.

Boris is not the protector of anyone aside from himself, he is a self-interested (imo) clinical psychopath, however destroying a rotten system, by any means necessary to punish and humiliate those who were happy to benefit from it at the expense of others is perfectly justified.
Last edited by Le Male; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Le Male
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by Zoqua)
Yeah, because people would love to be working farms, picking strawberries and doing all the really hard intensive labor that 'unskilled workers' are vital for.

By the way, 'more capable people' are not defined by IQ's. 'more capable' means being qualified to do your job, granted a higher IQ will certainly not reduce your chances (IQ tests and the study of IQ & research into how indicative it is of future success are actually quite interesting, I'm not an IQ hater), but surely, qualifications, experience and dedication matter more, but that's a debate for another forum.
I mostly definitely have no hatred for poor European migrant workers, I would however love to see the British businessman go bankrupt because his gravy train of unlimited dirt cheap labout got cut off.

This is the central reason I voted to remain in fact, EU legislation has reigned in the excesses of regressive medium sized anglo businesses and my hope that as the eastern bloc gets developed the people there, will not be so vulnerable that greedy Brit employers can exploit them

You are wrong about IQ.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#48
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by Le Male)
The first part is false, globalism has created a disconnect between the cost of housing and income which has never been as vast as at any era.

Boris is not the protector of anyone aside from himself, he is a self-interested (imo) clinical psychopath, however destroying a rotten system, by any means necessary to punish and humiliate those who were happy to benefit from it at the expense of others is perfectly justified.
Boris isn't there to destroy the system in the way you hope. He represents a group of offshored global financiers and hedge fund plutocrats, as well as US corporate interests and they simply want to promote an extreme form of capitalism in which the rich own absolutely everything and the mass of the people go to hell in a handbasket.

Of course globalism has created a massive gap in wealth, but the EU has in recent years become the only major global institution that is (a) capable of tackling this in meaningful ways and (b) showing a real interest in favouring the interests of the people against the global plutocracy. To reject the EU is to place us at the mercy of US, Russian and other oligarchs and their cruel, indifferent policies.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by lawtc2019)
Then please, do go ahead and give me a numerical percentage which you deem appropriate to be labelled the 'will of the people'

The turnout is irrelevant. The point is you're always going to have people moaning whatever the outcome, and the fact still remains, there is a majority. If a general election happened and the government won 51% of seats and the opposition had 49% of seats, and each MP followed the whip then laws are going to get passed based on what the government want. Unless you're trying to tell me that if 51% of seats were occupied by the government they wouldn't have the right to pass any laws based on that sole 2% majority because they didn't have the 'will of the people'?
In the government situation that you've stated, the percentages are completely irrelevant. In fact you are backing up my point... If you have a government with a 51% majority, just because it has that majority does not mean that it has the right to pass any laws at all. It must get a majority backing on those laws. It cannot do as it pleases, simply because it has a majority.

Either way, in a monumental decision such as this, 51% of people, some who believed the lies that were told, is not a majority to leave the EU.
0
reply
Le Male
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Boris isn't there to destroy the system in the way you hope. He represents a group of offshored global financiers and hedge fund plutocrats, as well as US corporate interests and they simply want to promote an extreme form of capitalism in which the rich own absolutely everything and the mass of the people go to hell in a handbasket.

Of course globalism has created a massive gap in wealth, but the EU has in recent years become the only major global institution that is (a) capable of tackling this in meaningful ways and (b) showing a real interest in favouring the interests of the people against the global plutocracy. To reject the EU is to place us at the mercy of US, Russian and other oligarchs and their cruel, indifferent policies.
If Boris pushes too far there will also be a counter jerk in the opposite direction which will open the door for real left-wing change. The issue we have had for the past 20 years is that both sides of the political spectrum have been hijacked by neo-liberals so you could boot out the tories and get more of the same, boot out labour and get a red tory and it sucked. Boris and Jezbollah are opening up the door for real choice.

The EU has rewarded the irresponsibility, the excesses and the general corruption of Southern Europe at the expense of more disciplined countries, if the truth was known, the real reason Germany doesn't want the UK to leave, is because they will be forced to be daddy all by themselves as the kids continue to run riot. The EU is a corrupt very catholic organisation more like FIFA or the Sicilian mafia rather than a serious protector of the people, even if I agree that the more worker-centric views of the French and Italians has had a positive impact on the Germano-Protestant workaholics.
0
reply
Vinny C
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by Le Male)
You and your disgusting ilk have disobeyed the will of the people and treason gets what treason deserves. I hope we leave with no deal and we can crash the house prices in Londonistan by 40% so real British people can move back in rather than Arab billionaires and the low classes in social housing.
Oh yes... we will challenge thug rule from your sham campaign. You didn't vote to leave... you just voted to punch Cameron on the nose but you're too dense to see the difference.
0
reply
username1421435
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
In the government situation that you've stated, the percentages are completely irrelevant. In fact you are backing up my point... If you have a government with a 51% majority, just because it has that majority does not mean that it has the right to pass any laws at all. It must get a majority backing on those laws. It cannot do as it pleases, simply because it has a majority.

Either way, in a monumental decision such as this, 51% of people, some who believed the lies that were told, is not a majority to leave the EU.
"majority does not mean that it has the right to pass any laws at all. It must get a majority backing on those laws. It cannot do as it pleases, simply because it has a majority."

With all due respect, now you're just contradicting yourself.

In my scenario, I said that all members were following party whips - so the government were voting for any law that it puts forward, and the opposition are voting against any law put forward by the government.

Therefore, the 'majority' and 'majority backing' in this scenario is the same.

Now whilst I cannot possibly comprehend how this argues your point, would you not agree that Brexit, although close, received a majority backing? There is nothing subjective about that. There was a majority. It was a small majority, but Brexit did receive a majority backing.

So sure, given that you're unwilling to put a numerical figure on what constitutes the 'will of the people', one can only presume that it is equivalent to a majority backing?
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#53
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#53
(Original post by Le Male)
If Boris pushes too far there will also be a counter jerk in the opposite direction which will open the door for real left-wing change. The issue we have had for the past 20 years is that both sides of the political spectrum have been hijacked by neo-liberals so you could boot out the tories and get more of the same, boot out labour and get a red tory and it sucked. Boris and Jezbollah are opening up the door for real choice.

The EU has rewarded the irresponsibility, the excesses and the general corruption of Southern Europe at the expense of more disciplined countries, if the truth was known, the real reason Germany doesn't want the UK to leave, is because they will be forced to be daddy all by themselves as the kids continue to run riot. The EU is a corrupt very catholic organisation more like FIFA or the Sicilian mafia rather than a serious protector of the people, even if I agree that the more worker-centric views of the French and Italians has had a positive impact on the Germano-Protestant workaholics.
Your stereotyping the EU as a cosy Catholic conspiracy to pamper the siesta-loving Southern Europeans at the expense of gritty Northern Protestants makes a nice change from the usual one of the Napoleonic French imposing a dictatorship of Gaullists, or the German's winning WW2 by 'other means'. Pretty much all of these theories are rubbish, but I suppose they feel comforting. The EU is really a grand experiment in shared sovereignty by consent and there has never before been anything like it (the UN was a kind of early trial run I suppose) and it is hard for people to adjust to and it does have problems, like a democratic deficit, which it has struggled to fix. Leaving it simply clears the pitch for corrupt systems in Russia and the US to take over.
0
reply
Le Male
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by Vinny C)
Oh yes... we will challenge thug rule from your sham campaign. You didn't vote to leave... you just voted to punch Cameron on the nose but you're too dense to see the difference.
Well I voted to remain. The issue is that all of your leaders and icons are thugs and crooks, Clinton, Blair, Cameron, Osborne, now we have crazies like AOC in the USA so it is only a matter of time until that comes here. The only principled leftists were gentleman like Tony Benn and Cable, but they are a dying breed. The right will continue to run with thugs and politics will get nastier and nastier until you develop ettiquette and principles of your own.
0
reply
Vinny C
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 weeks ago
#55
(Original post by lawtc2019)
"majority does not mean that it has the right to pass any laws at all. It must get a majority backing on those laws. It cannot do as it pleases, simply because it has a majority."

With all due respect, now you're just contradicting yourself.

In my scenario, I said that all members were following party whips - so the government were voting for any law that it puts forward, and the opposition are voting against any law put forward by the government.

Therefore, the 'majority' and 'majority backing' in this scenario is the same.

Now whilst I cannot possibly comprehend how this argues your point, would you not agree that Brexit, although close, received a majority backing? There is nothing subjective about that. There was a majority. It was a small majority, but Brexit did receive a majority backing.

So sure, given that you're unwilling to put a numerical figure on what constitutes the 'will of the people', one can only presume that it is equivalent to a majority backing?
Chest thumping... 17.4 million... the will of the people. It is all they have left.
0
reply
Le Male
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Your stereotyping the EU as a cosy Catholic conspiracy to pamper the siesta-loving Southern Europeans at the expense of gritty Northern Protestants makes a nice change from the usual one of the Napoleonic French imposing a dictatorship of Gaullists, or the German's winning WW2 by 'other means'. Pretty much all of these theories are rubbish, but I suppose they feel comforting. The EU is really a grand experiment in shared sovereignty by consent and there has never before been anything like it (the UN was a kind of early trial run I suppose) and it is hard for people to adjust to and it does have problems, like a democratic deficit, which it has struggled to fix. Leaving it simply clears the pitch for corrupt systems in Russia and the US to take over.
It's clearly not by consent because the metropolitan elite have managed to a parliamentary coup against the will of the people.

>calls me a conspiracy theorist
>blames America and Russia for everything
0
reply
username1421435
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#57
Report 4 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by Vinny C)
Chest thumping... 17.4 million... the will of the people. It is all they have left.
I have no idea which side of the debate you are on but please accept my heartfelt gratitude for your poignant and thoughtful submission to this debate
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#58
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by Le Male)
Well I voted to remain. The issue is that all of your leaders and icons are thugs and crooks, Clinton, Blair, Cameron, Osborne, now we have crazies like AOC in the USA so it is only a matter of time until that comes here. The only principled leftists were gentleman like Tony Benn and Cable, but they are a dying breed. The right will continue to run with thugs and politics will get nastier and nastier until you develop ettiquette and principles of your own.
What's wrong with AOC ffs? She's the most principled politician in the US.
0
reply
Vinny C
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by Le Male)
Well I voted to remain. The issue is that all of your leaders and icons are thugs and crooks, Clinton, Blair, Cameron, Osborne, now we have crazies like AOC in the USA so it is only a matter of time until that comes here. The only principled leftists were gentleman like Tony Benn and Cable, but they are a dying breed. The right will continue to run with thugs and politics will get nastier and nastier until you develop ettiquette and principles of your own.
Er… are we on the same side?
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#60
Report 4 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by lawtc2019)
"majority does not mean that it has the right to pass any laws at all. It must get a majority backing on those laws. It cannot do as it pleases, simply because it has a majority."

With all due respect, now you're just contradicting yourself.

In my scenario, I said that all members were following party whips - so the government were voting for any law that it puts forward, and the opposition are voting against any law put forward by the government.

Therefore, the 'majority' and 'majority backing' in this scenario is the same.

Now whilst I cannot possibly comprehend how this argues your point, would you not agree that Brexit, although close, received a majority backing? There is nothing subjective about that. There was a majority. It was a small majority, but Brexit did receive a majority backing.

So sure, given that you're unwilling to put a numerical figure on what constitutes the 'will of the people', one can only presume that it is equivalent to a majority backing?
I am not contradicting myself at all. May had a majority in government yet couldn't get the deal passed. That is the point I am making.

51% of 72% of people is not a majority. It would not be enough to take union action. You cannot make a monumental decision based on that small percentage. By starting this whole process the government has completely excluded the beliefs of half of this country. Like it or lump it, that' is the way it is. 49% of this country has been ignored.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (65)
23.21%
No (215)
76.79%

Watched Threads

View All