Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Don't let Boris prorogue Parliament | |
Posted by: | John Bradley | |
Date/Time: | 30/08/19 18:44:00 |
Michael Heseltine claims that Boris' decision on prorogation is a: "constitutional catastrophe". If I remember rightly he was Deputy Prime Minister when parliament was prorogued in 1997 presumably not catastrophic then. In 1948 Clement Atlee prorogued parliament in order to ensure his nationalisation plans went through unimpeded by the House of Lords. Cometh the hour, cometh the prorogation. If MPs did not want to leave without a deal they could have voted for the one the EU has agreed. Leaving in accordance with Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty (i.e. 31st Oct.), which parliament voted overwhelmingly for, is out of the hands of the PM and the EU has said that they will not discuss any extension unless they have concrete alternatives; no alternatives have been approved by parliament. The die is cast. As for the way Boris Johnson was elected, that's little different to the way we got Gordon Brown (or Jim Callaghan for that matter). Outrage seems to be the order of the day, but only when it's something one disagrees with. PS what would parliament have discussed that they hadn't debated (ad nauseum) for the last three years? PPS Brexit may or may not be wise, but it is not a catastrophe: climate change with the destruction of the Amazonian forest and decisions such as Runway 3 is. |