Queen Elizabeth Tells Parliament That Going Thru With BREXIT Is Her “Priority”

[Gunny]

Who writes her speeches ?

Her speeches are the finished product of work undertaken by her personal Private Secretary. He, however, has the duty of incorporating drafts from Government Ministers and then 'knitting them together' into one finished composition.

Whether or not, somehow, the Queen has any impact on public opinion, this cannot be seen to come from anything she says. The British monarchy is required in public to maintain absolute neutrality.

I believe this is also true for all members of the Royal Family (so it's not as though she could use Prince Charles as a mouthpiece, for example ...).

Consider a scenario where a Corbyn Government became a reality. She can't stand in opposition to it, in any way. I cited the example of Harold Wilson's Premiership ... his was a very Left wing agenda. The Queen did not, and could not, oppose it.

A Government is democratically elected. A Corbyn Government getting that electoral support would immediately react to the smallest intervention by the Queen by saying that it was not only unconstitutional, but an insult to the intentions of the voting Public. Here, all Parties set out manifesto pledges and pledge to carry them out, if elected. If the Queen voiced an objection, she'd be seen (it could be argued) as her defying democracy itself.

This might be of interest; not only because of the fact that it happened, but also because of the furore caused by its becoming public knowledge !

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/996580...sh-referendum/



As I say: the Queen CANNOT be seen to be less than politically neutral at all times.

Here's what I am saying, and in response to you last statement/sentence: You say the Queen must be seen as politically neutral at all time; yet, her statement is far from politically neutral. It takes a political stance on BREXIT.

So I don't get it. What is the point to the Queen making a statement at all if it stands for nothing? To give something legitimacy, no? The Queen's "stamp". It has to mean something to someone or something.

I'm not a Brit, but it would mean something to me if I was. ESPECIALLY since I agree with Her Majesty

[Drummond]

Here's what I am saying, and in response to you last statement/sentence: You say the Queen must be seen as politically neutral at all time; yet, her statement is far from politically neutral. It takes a political stance on BREXIT.

So I don't get it. What is the point to the Queen making a statement at all if it stands for nothing? To give something legitimacy, no? The Queen's "stamp". It has to mean something to someone or something.

I'm not a Brit, but it would mean something to me if I was. ESPECIALLY since I agree with Her Majesty

You're getting a little too fixated on the title 'The Queen's Speech'.

It is a speech she makes, to satisfy constitutional procedure. But it's a product of ritual, and is not her draft. It's written for her. What she reads are not HER words. They're just written as though they are.

It's all really a throwback to eras ago, when our monarchy retained real power. The ritual remains, its constitutional duty remains law. But as I say, she doesn't write those speeches. They're not her words. It's all drafted for her, by a Private Secretary, who in turn has to gather drafts of intent written by Government Ministers, each representing their own Departments. The speeches she reads are political speeches .. of course they are. But she's conveying no words of her own, confirming no personally-held views, when she reads them out.

The point of a Queens Speech is that the Government of the day is telling its people what Governmental objectives will be pursued over the coming Parliamentary Session. That is its purpose, and that is its reason for being voiced. The Queen refers to HER Government, because protocol that's never been done away with says that's so ... officially, 'Constitutionally', the UK is a monarchy. But she retains no real power. Our monarchy lost that power long ago. Now, it's a ritual, but a convenient one serving a political purpose she's had no hand in shaping.

I assure you, if Corbyn won an election, and you were to listen to the Queen's Speech following from it ... if you remained convinced that she was uttering HER words, you'd suddenly believe she had become a radical Socialist !

The law, as it stands, provides for the Queen operating as an official stamp for certain duties. Legal protocol is satisfied when she completes those duties. But she lacks authoritarian autonomy, far more completely than you think.

I'm sorry if you're inclined to disagree. But, I know my own country. I assure you I'm right.

[Gunny]

You're getting a little too fixated on the title 'The Queen's Speech'.

It is a speech she makes, to satisfy constitutional procedure. But it's a product of ritual, and is not her draft. It's written for her. What she reads are not HER words. They're just written as though they are.

It's all really a throwback to eras ago, when our monarchy retained real power. The ritual remains, its constitutional duty remains law. But as I say, she doesn't write those speeches. They're not her words. It's all drafted for her, by a Private Secretary, who in turn has to gather drafts of intent written by Government Ministers, each representing their own Departments. The speeches she reads are political speeches .. of course they are. But she's conveying no words of her own, confirming no personally-held views, when she reads them out.

I assure you, if Corbyn won an election, and you were to listen to the Queen's Speech following from it ... if you remained convinced that she was uttering HER words, you'd suddenly believe she had become a radical Socialist !

The law, as it stands, provides for the Queen operating as an official stamp for certain duties. Legal protocol is satisfied when she completes those duties. But she lacks authoritarian autonomy, far more completely than you think.

I'm sorry if you're inclined to disagree. But, I know my own country. I assure you I'm right.

I do not disagree with anything you have stated. BUT... I'm saying the words are there. If the words are the wish of the majority of whatever ministers or ministries or whoever it is the data represents, then there should be no problem with BREXIT, right? I ask that facetiously

[Drummond]

I do not disagree with anything you have stated. BUT... I'm saying the words are there. If the words are the wish of the majority of whatever ministers or ministries or whoever it is the data represents, then there should be no problem with BREXIT, right? I ask that facetiously

Agreed !!! There should be no problem with Brexit. None at all.

Unfortunately ... realities intervene. A reality where Socialist wreckers show complete contempt for the result of a Referendum in which well over 30 million people voted. A reality where a couple of hundred Leftie power-mad MP's think that THEIR wishes and agenda should outweigh those expressed by the UK's many millions of voters.

They claim to act in the service of 'democracy' when they do this.

Why ?

Because they're SCUM, that's why.

Latest development: the BBC says that Donald Tusk, the EU official who received Boris's literature about the extension / non-extension request made days ago, is recommending to the other Member States to offer the UK an extension (again).

Looks like the Labour trash have won this round. May they enjoy the General Election to follow !!

[Noir]

I do not disagree with anything you have stated. BUT... I'm saying the words are there. If the words are the wish of the majority of whatever ministers or ministries or whoever it is the data represents, then there should be no problem with BREXIT, right? I ask that facetiously

It might be the expression of the government, however it is a minority government and needs support from other parties to pass legislation.

The only other party that was supporting the conservatives was the DUP, Theresa Mays government gave the DUP £1 billion in funding to get the DUPs 10 votes. However, Johnson’s latest deal, with an Irish Sea border, is not something the DUP can support, so they haven’t.

[Drummond]

It might be the expression of the government, however it is a minority government and needs support from other parties to pass legislation.

The only other party that was supporting the conservatives was the DUP, Theresa Mays government gave the DUP £1 billion in funding to get the DUPs 10 votes. However, Johnson’s latest deal, with an Irish Sea border, is not something the DUP can support, so they haven’t.

Yes. There are some truths here ... unfortunately.

By the way, the Daily Mirror claimed it was £1.5 billion, not £1bn. But then, the Mirror is an especially hardline Leftie rag, so their wish to exaggerate for an agenda's sake is, I suppose, hardly surprising.

What will interest me now is what's about to happen, on two fronts. Firstly, will Tusk and his merry band of compliant EU Drone-States rubber-stamp the granting of a further extension ? A report just claimed that Labour (who were SO keen on wanting an election for literally years, but chickened out when offered one !) will only agree to an election if Tusk & Co give the UK a minimum three month extension ... they'll not agree to one if it's just for a few weeks.

[Just as Labour wanted the maximum possible time-latitude to submit wrecking amendments when scrutinising the Deal legislation .. so, also, they want an unencumbered path towards killing off the progress of Brexit entirely, should 'they win the election'.]

Secondly ... if/when faced with the prospect of a imminent election, what steps will Labour take to sanitise their official position, when they begin their campaigning ? If they do nothing about that, they're in for - I believe - one hell of a shock when they start to confront the electorate.

I wonder if they're so far removed from reality, so introspectively obsessed with their preferred political machinations, that they've genuinely no concept of the depth of anger out there !

[Gunny]

Agreed !!! There should be no problem with Brexit. None at all.

Unfortunately ... realities intervene. A reality where Socialist wreckers show complete contempt for the result of a Referendum in which well over 30 million people voted. A reality where a couple of hundred Leftie power-mad MP's think that THEIR wishes and agenda should outweigh those expressed by the UK's many millions of voters.

They claim to act in the service of 'democracy' when they do this.

Why ?

Because they're SCUM, that's why.

Latest development: the BBC says that Donald Tusk, the EU official who received Boris's literature about the extension / non-extension request made days ago, is recommending to the other Member States to offer the UK an extension (again).

Looks like the Labour trash have won this round. May they enjoy the General Election to follow !!

Your words appear to be describing the Democratic Party in the US. Our entire country should change for the desires of the few.

I find it absurd the vast majority sit silently by as it comes to pass. More absurd is the behavior of the left who would rather destroy nations than lose any of its feeble power.

[Drummond]

Your words appear to be describing the Democratic Party in the US. Our entire country should change for the desires of the few.

I find it absurd the vast majority sit silently by as it comes to pass. More absurd is the behavior of the left who would rather destroy nations than lose any of its feeble power.

The problem is one of perception, and the very natural fact that people will perceive realities in their own terms.

I believe that what I call 'The Left', or 'Lefties' .. might refer to a particular set of people within any one context I happen (or you happen) to be considering at any moment in time, as though they were a distinct group with aims and ambitions, and a methodology, specific to that group. I also think, however, that it's not, in wider terms, anything like that simple ....

'The Left', or 'Lefties', I think share common psychological attributes. The result is that they think and act more similarly than you'd at first expect, given dissimilarities between events, societies, imperatives ... BUT ... since they all have similar hopes and ambitions, since the overall political 'nirvanas' they strive for are similar in nature, so their behaviours will be similar as well. So what if our relative societies have significant differences .. the 'Leftie vision' is still a shared vision, and the Left, being the Left, will exhibit similar characteristics when combatting societies' challenges to it.

The Left is obsessed with power, and commonly seeks to not only attain it, but concentrate it, so as to best wield it. The Left will see individualism, and individuals' wishes, as an unwelcome interference in that process. So it is that they ignore individuals, and why their system of rule veers towards proactive actions rather than reactive ones. They speak ... but it's mono-directional. They don't listen, not if they don't like what they hear.

The further Left the regime ... the less democratic its nature. Who has seen a Communist State that's fully democratic ? That's not true just in one place ... but in all places.

Certainly in my country, but perhaps increasingly in yours, the Left relies on propaganda. Its method and purpose ... see things OUR way, think that OUR way is the ONLY way. Adopt OUR values, believe what OUR people tell you. Reject everything else as undesirable.

I've always found this informative:

My boss (one of them) at my former place of work had a clear Left wing vision. He wanted the death of all Nation States, and for humanity to essentially exist as one nation only, unified in purpose, aspirations ... individual divergence to die a death. He hated America because its reverence for the individual spirit stood in defiance of such unity. He hated its power, because its power was not only applied in particular ways, but existed as a force distinct from many others. He hated its Capitalism, not only because of what it was, but because of its very success. Its success stood in opposition to others' receptiveness to what he insisted was a 'better way'.

I think that if Left wing movements, everywhere, enjoyed unprecedented success, they'd all end up joining up to each other, rather like a virus that spreads until everywhere is equally infected by it. The infection would have precisely the same characteristics, no matter where it had taken hold.

The Left is nothing more than a pernicious virus that exists to dominate in its own terms, making everyone subservient to it. Its central battle is ... individualism versus uniformity. Enterprise versus the death of aspiration.

Those who'd equivocate in the face of the Left, do the Left's work for them. See what the Left sees. Be persuaded by them. Because if you're not, the Left won't listen to your opposing view. You must see things their way. Or else.

Sieg Heil !!

[Drummond]

Firstly .. we're waiting to see if the EU grants the expected extension of pulling out of the EU to 31st January. Most commentators believe that the UK will get it.

Tonight's development: Boris is offering a General Election, to happen on 12th December. Corbyn's been approached about it .. Labour has to agree if Boris will get the two thirds majority needed to enact one.

Boris has threatened that the business of Government 'goes on strike' if agreement isn't reached. Meaning, among other things, that all progress towards moving the Brexit deal forward is stalled.

Corbyn has responded by saying he'll agree nothing unless all possibility of a no-deal Brexit is 'taken off of the table' (this ignoring, as ever, that the EU has a lot of input in all of this, and that in fact they could guarantee that outcome if they felt like it !).

The Liberal Democrat Party (current leader Jo Swinson) sent a letter to Corbyn, suggesting another wrecking measure. She suggests that the Queens Speech pledges are tinkered with, to include an amendment committing the Government to take on a policy commitment to institute a 'Peoples' Vote' ... i.e ... commit to a Second Referendum on Brexit (its purpose being to stamp on the decision from the first one).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50174402

The PM has said he will give MPs more time to debate his Brexit deal, if they agree to a 12 December election.

Boris Johnson told the BBC he expected the EU to grant an extension to his 31 October deadline, even though he "really" did not want one.

But Jeremy Corbyn said he would not support an election until a no-deal Brexit is "off the table".

EU leaders are expected to give their verdict on delaying Brexit for up to three months on Friday.

Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg told MPs the government would on Monday table a motion calling for a general election.

Under the 2011 Fixed-Term Parliament Act, two-thirds of MPs must vote for a general election before one can be held.

[Kathianne]

@Drummond @Noir

If this article has it right, I just cannot imagine what Americans would do under these circumstances. Truly, it makes our system seem coherent.

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morri...n-seven-weeks/

[Drummond]

@Drummond @Noir

If this article has it right, I just cannot imagine what Americans would do under these circumstances. Truly, it makes our system seem coherent.

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morri...n-seven-weeks/

My post #84 covers this already.

In fact, though, both my post and the article are outdated. A further development: the EU intends, now, to delay telling us what extension they'll grant until Monday next week. They say that before announcing an agreed period of extension, they want to see how the offer Boris made to Corbyn to give more examination time to the Deal legislation in return for an agreed 12th December election, plays out.

This makes things awkward for Corbyn !

Given that we'd been given a three month extension, and that Corbyn would've known that today, he'd be in a comfortable position to decide on his tactics ... potentially, he could've said 'no' to the election immediately, then committed the Commons to several more weeks of scrutiny-time (calling Boris's bluff, and making Boris waste time in limbo ... the more time wasted, the more time there could've been the need for, in yet ANOTHER extension !).

But with the EU's announcement, the pressure is on Corbyn to get things done (or to be prepared to, anyway) far more quickly and completely. From the EU's side of things, they'll want to know what an extension is for ... how it'll be used, against what political conditions. If Corbyn agreed to a 12th December election, the EU could grant a lengthy extension to allow that to be done, & to see where everybody stood otherwise, afterwards. If he doesn't agree to one ... then uncertainty, confusion, continues on for everybody. The EU, in granting the extension, will see time wasted and have no idea how this will progress.

Macron (French President) is keen to only grant an extension to mid-November ! If he digs his heels in, he'd be able to veto any longer extension ... since EVERY other Member State must agree the period of extension.

Corbyn argues that he'll only agree to an election if Boris guarantees that 'no deal' is an impossibility ... he claims that legislation contained in the Bill includes that provision. If he gets his way, the UK will be legally incapable of having a Brexit without one.

Here's the thing: amendments can be made to our legislation radical enough to force us to change provisions in the deal (for example, a PERMANENT Customs Union has already been suggested, which itself would change the deal). Changes to the deal would involve further negotiation ... what if another measure was suggested that the EU wouldn't agree to ? It took them many months to agree to drop the backstop provision !!

Amendments proposed ... further negotiation ... further stalling ... combined with being legally bound to ONLY leave, WITH a deal ... all that could drag on indefinitely !! This is the chaotic uncertainty ruling out 'no deal' would produce, all of it authored BY LABOUR.

So, we've got to see what happens on Monday. We'll not have the luxury of knowing the EU's intention before then, so Corbyn will have to give way if we're to have progress. If he does, we'll probably have our election and the Brexit deal will be revisited afterwards (UNLESS Corbyn's people use time granted by Boris, and use it productively and well, and without wrecking amendments getting in the way ... not likely, if Corbyn remains obstructive).

If the situation arises (unlikely, yet very possible) of Corbyn agreeing to an election, then Macron gets his way and the extension runs out, BEFORE IT ... then Corbyn will probably have to agree to ratify .. at breakneck speed. Either that, or, we crash out minus a deal.

... Or, Corbyn's stupid and arrogant enough to order a further extension request in defiance of it .....

If the EU grants no extension, it seems we'll do that anyway.

[Kathianne, on your point about 'coherence' .. I'd simply say that all this comes from two factors: our stupidity for ever having being tied to the EU at any time (!!) ... combined with all the monumental chaos Corbyn & his ilk have created, and are continuing to create. If he'd truly been committed to respecting the 2016 Referendum, and, had he been as keen on seeing us leave with a deal as he's said, we could've been out already, by last March ! Our system is fine -- it's knowing unprecedented chaos because THAT CHAOS IS BEING MANUFACTURED, in defiance of democratic will.]

[Drummond]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a4270646.html

EU leaders have postponed deciding on the length of a possible Brexit delay as Boris Johnson struggled to gain opposition support for a pre-Christmas election.

The decision came after the 27 EU ambassadors met on Friday to discuss granting the UK an extension past the current October 31 deadline.

They have agreed that a Brexit extension is needed, with a diplomat saying they will decide on its length next week, which will follow Monday's vote in the Commons on holding a snap election on December 12.

Following the decision, Mr Johnson said: "Parliament, as you know, has decided that they want to ask Brussels to keep us in the EU... At the moment the EU is trying to make up its mind what to do. We should be leaving on October 31.”

It comes as the Prime Minister admitted on Thursday that he would not meet his "do or die" Halloween deadline and demanded a pre-Christmas poll to end the "nightmare" Brexit crisis.

In an interview with Sky News on Friday, Mr Johnson said his offer for more time on the Brexit deal in exchange for a new election is "reasonable" and it is up to Jeremy Corbyn to "decide whether he wants to get this deal done or not".

He added: “It’s in (the EU's) power now to decide whether or not to have an extension. What we have is a great deal on the table.

“It’s a deal that’s been approved by Parliament, and what I’m saying is that it’s up to the Opposition, it’s up to Jeremy Corbyn, to decide whether he wants to get this deal done or not.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexi...id=mailsignout

Jeremy Corbyn has said he wants to see the terms of any Brexit extension offered by the EU before deciding which way to vote on Monday.

Meanwhile, Chancellor Sajid Javid has said the Government will push "again and again" for a general election if the opposition denies Mr Johnson a pre-Christmas election.

Mr Javid said the stalemate over Brexit had reduced Westminster to a "zombie parliament", and that it was now up to Labour to end the deadlock by agreeing to go back to the country.

With the Budget scheduled for November 6 having already been cancelled, the Chancellor suggested ministers would put other government business on hold until the issue was resolved.

"The Opposition have said, week after week, that if there is a delay of three months, which is what they requested through Parliament, then they will vote for a general election, so let's see if they keep their word," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

"And if they don't then we will keep bringing back to Parliament a motion to have an election - and we will keep doing that again and again.

"As for other parliamentary business, we'll have to wait and see what that is, and we will react to it at that time."

While some around Mr Corbyn back a snap election, many Labour MPs are bitterly opposed to a poll, fearing confusion over the party's position on Brexit will cost them at the ballot box.

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said they needed an "explicit commitment" that a no-deal Brexit was off the table before they would be prepared to back an election.

EU envoys to Brussels were due to discuss the length a third delay to Brexit on Friday, though officials said they would be reluctant to set a date because it could dictate the direction of political events in London.

According to a draft decision by the 27, which was seen by Reuters on Thursday evening, a delay would be granted "with the view to allowing for the finalisation of the ratification" of the divorce agreement sealed with Mr Johnson last week.

The draft text left the new Brexit date blank, but said the split could take place earlier if ratification was completed earlier - an idea known as "flextension", an amalgamation of the words "flexible" and "extension".

An EU official explained: "It's basically between a three-month flextension or a two-tier one."

Under the first idea, Britain would leave on January 31, three months after the current departure date, but earlier if it and the EU ratify an agreement before that.

The second one would include a second specific date when Britain could leave.

[Drummond]

https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/25/franc...Tc-XER5deYMx2s

European officials are meeting today to discuss the length of the latest delay to Brexit with the choice between a three-month wait and a two-tier exit.

However, they may not actually decide today and a result could be expected on Monday. It has emerged that France is leading calls for the UK to leave within the next two weeks after Boris Johnson lost crucial votes in Parliament, leaving the decision over a delay to EU leaders.

European Council president Donald Tusk has said that he would push for a three-month delay. However, French President Emmanuel Macron is said to be leading a rebellion that includes Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain and possibly the Netherlands calling for a shorter extension.

Mr Tusk has the backing of Germany and Ireland for the longer extension.

[Drummond]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...MkT1QBZhgwMucc

Labour opens the door to indefinite Brexit delay as Jeremy Corbyn rules out an election until no deal is 'off the table'

Jeremy Corbyn has left the door open to a Brexit delay beyond Jan 31, as his allies last night warned that Labour would block an election until no deal was ruled out by law.

The Labour leader signalled he will order his MPs to vote down Boris Johnson’s request next week for a poll on 12 December, describing the proposal as “really odd so near Christmas”.

While he refused to rule out backing the motion, he claimed that Labour’s support would be conditional on the Prime Minister providing safeguards against no deal to his “satisfaction”.

What have I said in other posts ?

This is all about VANDALISM.

There are forces wanting Brexit stalled or even derailed entirely. Labour leads them.

It'd be fascinating to see Corbyn's refusal to move forward as interpreted in EU eyes as proof that granting an extension probably served no quantifiable purpose .. so, they refuse to grant one, on that basis !! If that happened, we'd most likely be bounced into an enforced 'no deal' Brexit, and if so, CORBYN will be at fault !

[Noir]

The EU has accepted the UKs extension request to 31st January 2020.