SP
I gather that the PM could also introduce a bill setting aside the FTPA temporarily, which would only require a simple majority.
ST
But it would also be possible for opposition MPs to amend this notwithstanding bill to include the election needing to be on a certain date (e.g. sometime in November).
Ste
Founding member
I gather that the PM could also introduce a bill setting aside the FTPA temporarily, which would only require a simple majority.
But it would also be possible for opposition MPs to amend this notwithstanding bill to include the election needing to be on a certain date (e.g. sometime in November).
SC
Of course, there is a big problem with with this approach. A bill is a amendable. The FTPA approach already exists and cannot be amended.
As we saw this week, the government tabled a motion under the FTPA calling an election on a given date. If the motion had passed, it would have effectively 'activated' the provisions of the FTPA and the election would have been called.
If the Government tabled a bill next week that effectively set aside the FTPA temporarily, it would be amended. The bill would need to contain the date of the election. Lets assume it's 15th October. I can guarantee that opposition MPs and the so-called Gaukeward squad would table an amendment changing the date to 25th November. The SNP would table an amendment calling for 16-18 year olds to be given the vote. The SNP would add an amendment calling for a Section 30 order to permit a second Scottish independence referendum. The ERG would submit an amendment revoking this week's bill that prevents a no-deal Brexit. Once the bill cleared the House (amended or not), it would go to the Lords, they would repeat the process, probably talk it out, return it to the Commons, who would vote again (with one or two amendments), return it to the Lords a second time and, if that was rejected, it would return to the Commons and they would use the Parliament Act to force it onto the statute book.
However... Parliament will prorogue by next Thursday at the latest. A bill would expect the Commons and the Lords to debate and vote on it twice in four days and enact the Parliament Act in that time. Given that the Commons sits for far less time than the Lords, I honestly cannot see how it would happen. Parliament would prorogue on Thursday with a law on the statute book instructing the PM to seek an extension and without calling an election.
I gather that the PM could also introduce a bill setting aside the FTPA temporarily, which would only require a simple majority.
Of course, there is a big problem with with this approach. A bill is a amendable. The FTPA approach already exists and cannot be amended.
As we saw this week, the government tabled a motion under the FTPA calling an election on a given date. If the motion had passed, it would have effectively 'activated' the provisions of the FTPA and the election would have been called.
If the Government tabled a bill next week that effectively set aside the FTPA temporarily, it would be amended. The bill would need to contain the date of the election. Lets assume it's 15th October. I can guarantee that opposition MPs and the so-called Gaukeward squad would table an amendment changing the date to 25th November. The SNP would table an amendment calling for 16-18 year olds to be given the vote. The SNP would add an amendment calling for a Section 30 order to permit a second Scottish independence referendum. The ERG would submit an amendment revoking this week's bill that prevents a no-deal Brexit. Once the bill cleared the House (amended or not), it would go to the Lords, they would repeat the process, probably talk it out, return it to the Commons, who would vote again (with one or two amendments), return it to the Lords a second time and, if that was rejected, it would return to the Commons and they would use the Parliament Act to force it onto the statute book.
However... Parliament will prorogue by next Thursday at the latest. A bill would expect the Commons and the Lords to debate and vote on it twice in four days and enact the Parliament Act in that time. Given that the Commons sits for far less time than the Lords, I honestly cannot see how it would happen. Parliament would prorogue on Thursday with a law on the statute book instructing the PM to seek an extension and without calling an election.
NG
However... Parliament will prorogue by next Thursday at the latest. A bill would expect the Commons and the Lords to debate and vote on it twice in four days and enact the Parliament Act in that time. Given that the Commons sits for far less time than the Lords, I honestly cannot see how it would happen. Parliament would prorogue on Thursday with a law on the statute book instructing the PM to seek an extension and without calling an election.
Unless Boris Johnson requests to cancel the prorogation as its original purpose, a Queen's Speech, is nullified by his wish for an election?. Humiliating, and very annoying for HMQ, but is that an option?
noggin
Founding member
However... Parliament will prorogue by next Thursday at the latest. A bill would expect the Commons and the Lords to debate and vote on it twice in four days and enact the Parliament Act in that time. Given that the Commons sits for far less time than the Lords, I honestly cannot see how it would happen. Parliament would prorogue on Thursday with a law on the statute book instructing the PM to seek an extension and without calling an election.
Unless Boris Johnson requests to cancel the prorogation as its original purpose, a Queen's Speech, is nullified by his wish for an election?. Humiliating, and very annoying for HMQ, but is that an option?
SC
However... Parliament will prorogue by next Thursday at the latest. A bill would expect the Commons and the Lords to debate and vote on it twice in four days and enact the Parliament Act in that time. Given that the Commons sits for far less time than the Lords, I honestly cannot see how it would happen. Parliament would prorogue on Thursday with a law on the statute book instructing the PM to seek an extension and without calling an election.
Unless Boris Johnson requests to cancel the prorogation as its original purpose, a Queen's Speech, is nullified by his wish for an election?. Humiliating, and very annoying for HMQ, but is that an option?
How anybody in 10 Downing Street or the Government didn't foresee these problems... I'll keep this as brief as possible (lest the thread be hijacked any further).
The purpose of the prorogation was to dissolve a session of Parliament and introduce a Queen's Speech for a new legislative programme. A general election technically does not remove the need for a Queen's Speech. It delays it until the assembly of a new Parliament and Government. As prorogation is an Order-in-Council made by the Queen on the advice of her Privy Counsellors, it's possible the Queen could issue an Order (under the Royal Prerogative) 'delaying' or 'amending' the prorogation until a general election is called (presumably a matter of days until either a) the FTPA is enacted or b) to allow the Parliament Act to be used on a bill). However, the FTPA doesn't require an Order from the Queen to do so. Dissolution and prorogation are automatic. So the Queen would be issuing an Order to delay something that may not be required.
Moreover, if the Prime Minister were to go to the Queen and ask for prorogation to be delayed or revoked, it would undermine the argument that prorogation was for a Queen's Speech. It would instead reinforce the argument that the Prime Minister saw prorogation as a way to guarantee a no-deal Brexit and seek an election and that the Queen was advised improperly by the Privy Council (the crux of the cases brought in the Court of Session in Edinburgh and in the High Court). The Prime Minister would be saying "Your Majesty, I lied to you".
What the Prime Minster could do, however, is seek Judicial Review of his own Government and its actions. The High Court has ruled in the past that Orders-in-Council are unlawful (cf. the Chagossians and British Indian Ocean Territory). It's a high risk strategy and would result in the High Court (and probably the Supreme Court) listening to the Attorney-General argue that the advice he gave the Prime Minister, which he in turn gave to the Queen, was wrong. I'm not quite sure how the Government would prove its claim that it was wrong; I can't see an obvious point of law on which to argue, but there are (supposedly) better minds than mine in the corridors of power.
However... Parliament will prorogue by next Thursday at the latest. A bill would expect the Commons and the Lords to debate and vote on it twice in four days and enact the Parliament Act in that time. Given that the Commons sits for far less time than the Lords, I honestly cannot see how it would happen. Parliament would prorogue on Thursday with a law on the statute book instructing the PM to seek an extension and without calling an election.
Unless Boris Johnson requests to cancel the prorogation as its original purpose, a Queen's Speech, is nullified by his wish for an election?. Humiliating, and very annoying for HMQ, but is that an option?
How anybody in 10 Downing Street or the Government didn't foresee these problems... I'll keep this as brief as possible (lest the thread be hijacked any further).
The purpose of the prorogation was to dissolve a session of Parliament and introduce a Queen's Speech for a new legislative programme. A general election technically does not remove the need for a Queen's Speech. It delays it until the assembly of a new Parliament and Government. As prorogation is an Order-in-Council made by the Queen on the advice of her Privy Counsellors, it's possible the Queen could issue an Order (under the Royal Prerogative) 'delaying' or 'amending' the prorogation until a general election is called (presumably a matter of days until either a) the FTPA is enacted or b) to allow the Parliament Act to be used on a bill). However, the FTPA doesn't require an Order from the Queen to do so. Dissolution and prorogation are automatic. So the Queen would be issuing an Order to delay something that may not be required.
Moreover, if the Prime Minister were to go to the Queen and ask for prorogation to be delayed or revoked, it would undermine the argument that prorogation was for a Queen's Speech. It would instead reinforce the argument that the Prime Minister saw prorogation as a way to guarantee a no-deal Brexit and seek an election and that the Queen was advised improperly by the Privy Council (the crux of the cases brought in the Court of Session in Edinburgh and in the High Court). The Prime Minister would be saying "Your Majesty, I lied to you".
What the Prime Minster could do, however, is seek Judicial Review of his own Government and its actions. The High Court has ruled in the past that Orders-in-Council are unlawful (cf. the Chagossians and British Indian Ocean Territory). It's a high risk strategy and would result in the High Court (and probably the Supreme Court) listening to the Attorney-General argue that the advice he gave the Prime Minister, which he in turn gave to the Queen, was wrong. I'm not quite sure how the Government would prove its claim that it was wrong; I can't see an obvious point of law on which to argue, but there are (supposedly) better minds than mine in the corridors of power.
SC
I just want to say something about some of the comments in this thread.
I appreciate that this is a forum for discussing television coverage. Generally, I think we're quite good at staying on topic (unless it involves a rota). There are however likely to be a few members (maybe even some mods) who will question the need for some of my posts or those of Noggin, Rkolsen or itsrobert; "they're off-topic" or "they don't have anything to do with presentation."
The thing is... the subtitle of this thread is "Discussion of coverage". The fact that some of us are asking these questions suggests that there is a gap in the coverage. Something is missing. Some of the nuances or contradictions within our political system are not being explained. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting a two-hour lecture on UK constitutional theory to be aired in primetime but I am expecting the broadcasters to "inform, educate and entertain", especially in these uncertain times. That the BBC has thought to air Brexitcast on BBC One and asked Andrew Neil to anchor a new show suggests an awareness of this issue. The viewing figures for BBC Parliament this week suggest that perhaps the public do want to know more than they are being told at present.
Moreover, we are a 'broad church' with members around the world. If those members - having watched recent coverage - cannot understand what is happening in an informed and sensible way then we have a duty amongst ourselves to use what knowledge we may have to answer their questions.
That's all folks.
Mods: feel free to delete/move etc as you wish.
I appreciate that this is a forum for discussing television coverage. Generally, I think we're quite good at staying on topic (unless it involves a rota). There are however likely to be a few members (maybe even some mods) who will question the need for some of my posts or those of Noggin, Rkolsen or itsrobert; "they're off-topic" or "they don't have anything to do with presentation."
The thing is... the subtitle of this thread is "Discussion of coverage". The fact that some of us are asking these questions suggests that there is a gap in the coverage. Something is missing. Some of the nuances or contradictions within our political system are not being explained. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting a two-hour lecture on UK constitutional theory to be aired in primetime but I am expecting the broadcasters to "inform, educate and entertain", especially in these uncertain times. That the BBC has thought to air Brexitcast on BBC One and asked Andrew Neil to anchor a new show suggests an awareness of this issue. The viewing figures for BBC Parliament this week suggest that perhaps the public do want to know more than they are being told at present.
Moreover, we are a 'broad church' with members around the world. If those members - having watched recent coverage - cannot understand what is happening in an informed and sensible way then we have a duty amongst ourselves to use what knowledge we may have to answer their questions.
That's all folks.
Mods: feel free to delete/move etc as you wish.
JW
I guess, Schwing, we are truly in uncharted territory. I agree with your observation: there is a gap in the coverage. The coverage is wall-to-wall, but still unable to get to the heart of the matter, IMO. That in itself is a dichotomy.
Despite all of the hours of broadcast and endless procession of experts in front of the camera, I believe that the majority of the population are none the wiser with regard to potential outcomes and legality of the proceedings carried out by Parliament. (Much is which we’ve never seen before and probably won’t see again).
A bit like the parliamentary process itself (and the bedraggled politicians who currently serve us), there is something to be said in stripping back and simplifying the coverage.
The dramarama makes for excellent television. But, in reality, the outlets are doing nothing different (pres wise) than they did 3 years ago when the whole thing started.
“Less is more” should be remembered, perhaps?
Despite all of the hours of broadcast and endless procession of experts in front of the camera, I believe that the majority of the population are none the wiser with regard to potential outcomes and legality of the proceedings carried out by Parliament. (Much is which we’ve never seen before and probably won’t see again).
A bit like the parliamentary process itself (and the bedraggled politicians who currently serve us), there is something to be said in stripping back and simplifying the coverage.
The dramarama makes for excellent television. But, in reality, the outlets are doing nothing different (pres wise) than they did 3 years ago when the whole thing started.
“Less is more” should be remembered, perhaps?
NL
I understand where you're coming from Schwing and I share your concerns. The simple truth is that this is a situation that the UK has never had to deal with before. I'm at risk of going off topic but our constitution is something of an messy enigma. The events of the last few months have shown that up in all its in-glory.
The media in this country have until now either weren't or couldn't be concerned with the constitution of the UK as opposed to the USA and now that the constitution is front and centre they're scrabbling to catch up.
I studied A-Level politics and Journalism at college and I'm struggling to keep up. The scope and wealth of knowledge on this thread is staggering and I'm grateful for it.
I think that whenever this god-awful mess is sorted out there will be a reckoning within the media that they have been (with some honourable exceptions) totally ignorant or apathetic of the actual foundations of this country.
Like you I don't expect 2-3 hours of prime time to be taken up with a discussion of the constitution.
The media in this country have until now either weren't or couldn't be concerned with the constitution of the UK as opposed to the USA and now that the constitution is front and centre they're scrabbling to catch up.
I studied A-Level politics and Journalism at college and I'm struggling to keep up. The scope and wealth of knowledge on this thread is staggering and I'm grateful for it.
I think that whenever this god-awful mess is sorted out there will be a reckoning within the media that they have been (with some honourable exceptions) totally ignorant or apathetic of the actual foundations of this country.
Like you I don't expect 2-3 hours of prime time to be taken up with a discussion of the constitution.
NL
That's a candidate for understatement of the year
I don't think I have ever seen such a mess & I have seen a few 
That's a candidate for understatement of the year
MA
Wonder where Sky will have their coverage from, Millbank will be a wee bit small I'd have thought?
If nothing else this indecision is causing BBC Elstree studio D to have a lot of pencilling in and rubbing out of bookings 
Wonder where Sky will have their coverage from, Millbank will be a wee bit small I'd have thought?