|
Delthalaz posted:What happens if the queen doesn’t give her assent to a law? Then Parliament needs 50%+1 to abolish the Queen
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:09
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
Delthalaz posted:What happens if the queen doesn’t give her assent to a law? Very much a nuclear option and one that Johnson would have to ask her to do. Which'd mean him asking her to pick a side as suddenly she'd have to do something. Which way she'd jump then? Who knows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
Someone on twitch chat saying 10 amendments voted on right now, 90 remaining.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
lol I don't know if I'm ever going to recover from Bojo getting triple hosed in his first three days. Also who the gently caress were the three Labour MPs who voted for an early election?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Then Parliament needs 50%+1 to abolish the Queen I guess I mean hypothetically - - wouldn't the queen need to give her assent to the law abolishing the queen?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
Oh wow I think the tory lords gave up on their fillibuster. Or something happened. They are wrapping things up for the night. Edit- Lord Adonis says the government caved and some kind of deal was made https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1169406626366971904?s=20 marktheando fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Sep 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Oh wow I think the tory lords gave up on their fillibuster. Or something happened. They are wrapping things up for the night. Seems like they reached an agreement to all go home and a totally NEW (but the same) programme motion to be laid tomorrow. Not sure if the Tory peers have agreed not to trying amending that also yeah actually as above https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1169405535998943232
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
Finally found some bitter in my neighborhood liquor store but it's Boddies which pisses me off because it's brewed in loving Luton now and the gorgeous old brewery got demolished.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:41
|
|
|
Thank god for the tory lords all being a million years old and needing their beds
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
I've actually met one of the Labour Lords. He wasn't a Lord yet when we met, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
Delthalaz posted:What happens if the queen doesn’t give her assent to a law? Constitutional crisis of a degree not seen since the 17th century. Probably, Parliament passes some emergency measure stripping the need for her to do so (Likely by some fiction like "Actually the Queen HAS given permission, as proven by the presence of The Mace in this House" or something equally wild) and we're on course for abolition
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
What exactly is the Queen "allowed" to do in profound parliamentary crises like this? I get that the role of the monarchy is basically ceremonial and there'd be Deep poo poo if ever a monarch tried to actually involve themselves in parliamentary business, but is there any room for them to privately suggest "I know I'm not supposed to interfere but this is bullshit please sort it out for the good of the country"? Like, didn't George V do something along those lines in 1909-10 by telling the Tories if they didn't vote to strip powers from the House of Lords he'd ennoble enough random Liberals to allow Lloyd George to pass his People's Budget so shut the gently caress up and die in the dark already?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
Delthalaz posted:I guess I mean hypothetically - - wouldn't the queen need to give her assent to the law abolishing the queen? It might, depending on how they do it, but it sure didn't save Charles. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Sep 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:If you pardon this ignorant American for asking, what would it take to get rid of the whole "House of Lords" thing? The Lords is fine, and replacing it with an elected chamber would not be an improvement. It’s much cooler-headed and more sensible than the commons because it’s not so strongly party-political - see how they actually reached a compromise tonight. As mentioned before ITT, a lot of the Lords are subject matter experts who perform a useful role in scrutinising bad legislation. Electing the Lords would just make it another chamber full of braying idiots and we’ve already got one of those.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Finally found some bitter in my neighborhood liquor store but it's Boddies which pisses me off because it's brewed in loving Luton now and the gorgeous old brewery got demolished. It'd need a proper no poo poo we have nothing else brexit to get me to drink Boddington's again in this day and age. Rather have canned carling
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:wow that's a lot of votes for the lib-dems this but... unironically? still the only major explicitly pro-remain party lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:09
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:this but... unironically? lol Labour are just as pro-remain as the Lib "No Deal should be an option in a second referendum" Dems if not more so and in case you don't realise younger voters skew heavily for Labour, like >60% of under 30s
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Literally last week the Lib Dems refused to back a Corbyn caretaker government, the entire purpose of which would be to apply for another extension and call an election. At the time, it was the safest way to prevent No Deal, because nobody would have predicted that Boris would have hosed it this badly. The Lib Dems care more about their own electoral prospects than they do about Brexit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
Reforming the House of Lords is generally not very popular in the House of Commons, so it doesn’t happen. It’s not popular because electing the Lords gives them legitimacy, and therefore more power, power that the Commons would then lose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
What about just abolishing it and being unicameral, though?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:Reforming the House of Lords is generally not very popular in the House of Commons, so it doesn’t happen. It’s not popular because electing the Lords gives them legitimacy, and therefore more power, power that the Commons would then lose. Unicameral legislatures are a thing... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
Lycus posted:What about just abolishing it and being unicameral, though? The actual reason is just inertia. Nobody wants to waste political capital on constitutional reform except the Lib Dems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
the Commons has not exactly covered itself in glory over recent years and the Lords remains an effective chamber of review at some future point its role might evolve toward emphasizing the power to propose amendments to the Commons, since its other powers have steadily dribbled away over time anyway
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:24
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:The actual reason is just inertia. Nobody wants to waste political capital on constitutional reform except the Lib Dems. I'm sorry, but I was told by leftist uspol posters that political capital wasn't real and only a excuse used by those in power to deny the poor anything that would actually really help them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:40
|
|
|
It's real but it doesn't necessarily work the way it's often advertised. And it's possible to spend it in a way that gains you more of it in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQnOL_T6rc0 late night tunes: armalite rifle - gang of four some 70s IRA nostalgia
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
ThanosWasRight posted:I'm sorry, but I was told by leftist uspol posters that political capital wasn't real and only a excuse used by those in power to deny the poor anything that would actually really help them. In reality of course when you win an election what you get is a mandate from the people that voted for you to do the things that they elected you to do and that you promised to do to win their vote, and if you don't bust your rear end to make all those things happen ASAFP or have a really loving good reason that you couldn't which you communicate clearly to them, you will lose the support of those people, and your opponents will know it, and they will take the opportunity to gently caress you over and make you look feckless and incompetent so you lose the next election. Which won't be hard. And then they'll ban poor people and minorities and throw them in camps or maybe something worse while you cluck about decorum. Because you are feckless and incompetent, after all, being the sort of hopeless loser rear end in a top hat who believes in "political capital" like it's a factory or something, you idiot. You loving moron. Anyway yeah political capital. Boy, I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:15
|
|
|
Specifically nobody's going to win an election on lords reform so doing it is going to be perceived as timewasting. See: the AV referendum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:18
|
|
|
"political capital" makes sense as a concept in a legislative environment that is focused on dealmaking and you only have so much you can offer before you lose support. In modern American politics it's a dead.concept.because modern American politics is winner take all and no dealmaking is possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
 Surprised I didn't see this on the Sun Front cover today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Specifically nobody's going to win an election on lords reform so doing it is going to be perceived as timewasting. See: the AV referendum. he needs a box of depends, not a revoking of his peerage
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
the 1999 lords recommendations were great, and the top two would go a long way to making for a good second chamber
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
What's more meant in the British conception of political capital is Legislative time and effort. If you're writing bills to abolish the lords and presenting them to the media, defending them, editing bills etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Like, didn't George V do something along those lines in 1909-10 by telling the Tories if they didn't vote to strip powers from the House of Lords he'd ennoble enough random Liberals to allow Lloyd George to pass his People's Budget so shut the gently caress up and die in the dark already? It also allowed for further progress regarding the Irish Home Rule Question, sadly that was bypassed by WW1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Are these old fuckers really still awake and debating poo poo at 5 AM UK time
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
The thread does probably hover around 30 average age but I don't think that's really an old fucker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:Are these old fuckers really still awake and debating poo poo at 5 AM UK time Nah they came to some sort of deal a few hours ago and wrapped up, something like 1:30 or 2am. Not sure what that deal was but wouldn't have been agreed to if Lab wasn't mostly okay with it. Plus of course the Lords as a whole don't have to give a gently caress about re-election so if they think Boris is a wanker and/or No Deal Brexit is a doubleplusungood idea they can pretty much just tell the Brexiteers to do one. Probably helped sway some Tory Lords a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:Are these old fuckers really still awake and debating poo poo at 5 AM UK time I can’t sleep until I know we’re getting an election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
Chuka Umana posted:I can’t sleep until I know we’re getting an election. Hasn't Corbyn ruled it out until the extension? You'll go as mad as I am waiting 'til then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
I can't wait for the tory BXP split to crush the government
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 05:20
|
|