Parliament suspended. Democracy?!

May's deal was a disaster and would leave us tied to the EU for ages. Thank goodness it didn't go through. The only way now is for no deal and I hope Boris strands his ground. He has the people on his side and the MPs against him. He has no fear unlike May.

Chestnut I am not a Boris Johnson fan, but he does seem to have a lot of support at grassroots level.

Those who voted leave are beginning to believe that it might actually happen.

Parliament was shutting for the "conference season" anyway, it is only closing for a few extra days to encompass the Queens Speech.

These self serving monkeys (oops sorry should be MPs) have done bugger all over the last three years, cannot see what all the fuss is about!!

What were backbench MPs supposed to do?

Some of the leading supporters of Brexit were in May's Cabinet and had jobs related to Brexit. Why didn't they do anything?

As it happens, some of the backbench MPs have been very busy in committees on Brexit matters.

'Parliament was shutting for the "conference season" anyway, it is only closing for a few extra days to encompass the Queens Speech' How many times do I have to say that this is different to closing down for the conference season? Did anyone watch parliament right through to the early hours of the morning? I was disgusted at the sight of Johnson messing about with the microphone [oh how funny you are Boris; tee hee]. And he, Nicky Morgan [shame on her] and the woman on the other side shouting and grimacing at the opposite bench. It was a total embarrassment, especially as people from all over the world were probably watching it unfold. Was cheered by listening to speeches by Geraint Davies, Sir Alan Duncan [what a Conservative MP should look and sound like], Phil Wilson and Sir George Howarth. Anyone who thinks last nights debacle made this country look great and strong must have been watching something totally different as I found it sickening, albeit resulting in the right result for this country.

I didn't watch it so late, but evidently there was chaos at the end when Bercow was leaving and the Parl. session was officially closed.
I hope it was only a minority of MPs who lost their self control altogether.
All the uncertainty is causing people to crack up?

"WHEN THE food riots start, says Linda, a university administrator from Brighton, “I plan to watch them on TV enjoying a nice puttanesca whipped up from the Brexit cupboard.”

This is the opening paragraph in an article from The Economist - not known for scaremongering.

Further on it says:

But the food industry has driven home the relevant facts. Britain imports between two-fifths and half of its food, mostly from the EU. That supply could be halved because 50% of lorries coming from Calais into Dover are expected to get blocked by border checks and traffic chaos, says Tim Rycroft of the Food & Drink Federation, which represents giant food manufacturers. There are plans to fly in vital medicines, but not food."

"Stockpiling groups are aware of the risk of exacerbating shortages. A prominent, 10,960-strong Facebook group, 48% Preppers—a reference to the share of people who voted Remain in 2016—has stopped talking publicly about its activities. Jo Elgarf, an administrator, explains that it is now too late to stock up bit by bit. “Anything now will be panic.”

All the uncertainty is causing people to crack up?

I rather think it is all the attacks by Johnson and Cummings on democracy that is causing the anger Fennel.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/10/brexit-chants-of-shame-as-suspension-of-parliament-descends-into-chaos

Some people voted leave to "restore democracy to our own parliament"

Our own parliament has always had sovereignty, and we now see when our elected MPs act in a way that the brexiters don't like, parliament is shut down by a minority government acting disgracefully.

There is concern that the PM will ignore the law requiring him to ask the EU for an extension to Article 50.

We now read in The Sun, whose foreign billionaire proprietor Rupert Murdoch has actively campaigned for brexit, tells us-

"A No10 source said: “Under no circumstances will No10 staff comply with Grieve’s demands regardless of any votes in Parliament.”

No PM and no-one in government should ever be above the law.

Yes, the cries of ”take back control/sovereignty” are now sounding very hollow. Also, ”we must leave the EU and respect the will of the people”. What I would like to know is whose leave vote should we respect.

The leave voter who wanted control of our borders/fewer immigrants
The leave voter who wanted freedom to trade independently with all other countries
The leave voter who didn't want a European army
The leave voter who wanted more money for the NHS
The leave voter who wanted things to be ”as they were before”
The leave voter who thought we could just ”get out” with no consequences
The leave voter who wanted an end to ”the EU meddling in our lives”

Make no mistake, however we eventually leave the EU there are going to be many leavers who will feel let down and claim that they have been ignored. So, whose leave vote should represent the ”will of the people”?

Yes, the cries of ”take back control/sovereignty” are now sounding very hollow. Also, ”we must leave the EU and respect the will of the people”. What I would like to know is whose leave vote should we respect.

The leave voter who wanted control of our borders/fewer immigrants
The leave voter who wanted freedom to trade independently with all other countries
The leave voter who didn't want a European army
The leave voter who wanted more money for the NHS
The leave voter who wanted things to be ”as they were before”
The leave voter who thought we could just ”get out” with no consequences
The leave voter who wanted an end to ”the EU meddling in our lives”

Make no mistake, however we eventually leave the EU there are going to be many leavers who will feel let down and claim that they have been ignored. So, whose leave vote should represent the ”will of the people”?

Sorry about the duplication; sometimes one needs to hammer things down but it was not my intention to do so.

Good post Greta. Makes you think.

Leave means leave...[whatever that means..].

That's always been the problem Labaik

How many leave voters have ever known what "Leave means Leave" means let alone agreeing with other leave voters, let alone understanding that "cake and eat it brexit" was never an option?

I've received another reply to signing the "don't prorogue" petition, this time from Research Briefings at "Parliamentary Procedure" It is more detailed than the first (from Government) and as well as explaining the process and its history (saying that "between sessions during a Parliament, [it] has typically lasted less than a week") it mentions the Brexit connection specifically. I am forwarding that part here for those who don't follow links.
researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8589

The relevant bit says "Prorogation has been raised in two specific contexts in the Brexit debate.

Firstly it has been mentioned as a mechanism by which the Government could seek to get around the “same question” rule in relation to approval of the Withdrawal Agreement. In general, once the Commons has taken a decision on a question, the same, or substantially the same, question may not be proposed again in that session. A new session would have allowed the Government to revisit approval for the Withdrawal Agreement, the Commons having rejected two versions of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement and framework for the future relationship and explicitly rejected the Withdrawal Agreement in its own right in the 2017-19 Parliamentary session.

Secondly, a long prorogation has been mooted as an option to deliver a “no-deal” Brexit. The premise of such an idea is that MPs opposed to leaving without a deal could not then use Parliamentary procedure or legislation to frustrate that outcome if it were to become Government policy. This is possible because the default position in EU law is that the UK leaves the EU on 31 October 2019 without a deal unless:

a Withdrawal Agreement is ratified;
a further extension of Article 50 is secured (which requires both the European Council and the UK Government to agree to it); or
the United Kingdom revokes its notification of intent to withdraw.

* A long prorogation has been defended by its advocates as a means of “honouring the referendum result” from June 2016. However, critics of such an approach maintain that a Prime Minister embarking on such a strategy would do so in defiance of the elected House of Commons, unnecessarily bring the Crown into a political dispute, and undermine the role of Parliament in the UK’s constitutional and democratic arrangements. *

Prorogation being a prerogative power, there is no obvious legal mechanism by which Parliament could prevent its exercise otherwise than by passing legislation to constrain it. Parliament has legislated to constrain or replace the prerogative in the past. For instance, whereas previously the dissolution of Parliament prior to a General Election was an exclusively prerogative power, the calling of an election is now governed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

One paragraph of my previous message should have been in bold (mine, not theirs) I repeat it here as I meant it to appear -

A long prorogation has been defended by its advocates as a means of “honouring the referendum result” from June 2016. However, critics of such an approach maintain that a Prime Minister embarking on such a strategy would do so in defiance of the elected House of Commons, unnecessarily bring the Crown into a political dispute, and undermine the role of Parliament in the UK’s constitutional and democratic arrangements.

If anyone thinks that embarking on that strategy would be a good idea, I would beg them to look at circumstances where that has occurred in other countries - yes, in Germany under Adolf Hitler, as one example. This is one time where the introduction of the word "Nazi" is not only justified but essential. Neo-naziism has not gone away, it exists on the European mainland and the mind-set that lies behind it (that a powerful dictator is like a stern father who makes unilateral decisions about his children's lives, whether they are good decisions or not, because he can ) is also surfacing in the UK.

Andrea Leads on has just said the government will not publish the Yellowhammer documents (as required to do by law) because it would frighten people.

She also repeated the lie that Yellowhammer described a "worst case" scenario when it is in fact a " most likely" scenario.

Leadsom ( or Loathsome if you prefer), not Leads on, sorry.

If the population are grownup enough to vote to stay or leave, they are grownup enough to be told the possible - (or probable, or likely or inevitable) - consequences of getting what they asked for.

Boris wants a deal. Hopefully finally, so do our MP’s. The proverbial clock is ticking and if he and his team can come up with say, a few small tweaks to Theresa May & Ollie Robbins’ WA then I think as Brexit date gets nearer (51 days to go) they will vote for it, rather than leave with No Deal.

Obviously some Remainer MP’s don’t just want to stop a No Deal. They want to stop Brexit altogether. Jo Swinson for example won’t be a happy bunny.

But maybe ‘pragmatism’ (a buzz word I’m sick of now) will kick in and a ‘new’ WA will fly.

Scottish judges rule Parliament suspension is unlawful

Suspension of Parliament unlawful: Three judges at Scotland's highest court of appeal say the UK government's decision to shut down Parliament for more than a month is unlawful.

Has anyone any more about this?

crossed posts Grany - sorry.

Summary of judgement at court of sessions

twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1171719401453817856?s=20