I don't see the problem with this. For the PM to request the monarch to prorogue Parliament for political reasons is perfectly legal. It last happened, IIRC in 1997 towards the end of John Major's PMship.
Yes, it's perfectly legal and not unprecedented. Labour types are whining about how this is destroying "democracy." Actually, David Cameron decided to give "democracy" a try in calling the Brexit vote, because he thought it would lose and Parliament and Tories wouldn't be blamed. Bad gamble. Proroguing Parliament is a gamble on Boris Johnson's part. We'll see how it plays out.
Hold on there, Chris. It wasn't Charles that brought things down. It was Cromwell. (Just so you'll know, I belong the the Society of Charles, King and Martyr.)
Nope. Cromwell became prominent relatively late in the day. Parliament wasn't doing that well early on so if John Pym doesn't negotiate the Solemn League and Covenant and bring the Scots in on the Parliamentary side, chances are the war would have been over a lot sooner and you would never have heard of Cromwell. For that matter, if Charles and Laud had been able to dial back their insistence upon balls-to-the-wall High-Church Anglicanism in both kingdoms, they might not have antagonized the Presbyterians north of the Tweed and cut a lot of ground out from under the Puritans south of it.
Well, I recently finished editing a book that our priest wrote about Cromwell, the thrust of which was that Cromwell set out to dispose of the king. The book is written as a police procedural. There was a lot of behind the scenes politicking and secret dealing leading up to the Civil War. Fr. H__ is a former MA State Trooper, so the investigative work was very well done. I don't think there's ever been another book about Cromwell that has looked at that angle.
As Boris lost control of Parliament today, we'll see where this is going. I am astounded and saddened by the number of Brits who disdain their freedom.
8 comments:
Well, yes, Jeremy Corbyn as PM would be a lot worse.
I don't see the problem with this. For the PM to request the monarch to prorogue Parliament for political reasons is perfectly legal. It last happened, IIRC in 1997 towards the end of John Major's PMship.
Yes, it's perfectly legal and not unprecedented. Labour types are whining about how this is destroying "democracy." Actually, David Cameron decided to give "democracy" a try in calling the Brexit vote, because he thought it would lose and Parliament and Tories wouldn't be blamed. Bad gamble. Proroguing Parliament is a gamble on Boris Johnson's part. We'll see how it plays out.
Judging from his pic, he's middle-aged. What's his excuse?
Hold on there, Chris. It wasn't Charles that brought things down. It was Cromwell. (Just so you'll know, I belong the the Society of Charles, King and Martyr.)
Nope. Cromwell became prominent relatively late in the day. Parliament wasn't doing that well early on so if John Pym doesn't negotiate the Solemn League and Covenant and bring the Scots in on the Parliamentary side, chances are the war would have been over a lot sooner and you would never have heard of Cromwell. For that matter, if Charles and Laud had been able to dial back their insistence upon balls-to-the-wall High-Church Anglicanism in both kingdoms, they might not have antagonized the Presbyterians north of the Tweed and cut a lot of ground out from under the Puritans south of it.
Well, I recently finished editing a book that our priest wrote about Cromwell, the thrust of which was that Cromwell set out to dispose of the king. The book is written as a police procedural. There was a lot of behind the scenes politicking and secret dealing leading up to the Civil War. Fr. H__ is a former MA State Trooper, so the investigative work was very well done. I don't think there's ever been another book about Cromwell that has looked at that angle.
As Boris lost control of Parliament today, we'll see where this is going. I am astounded and saddened by the number of Brits who disdain their freedom.
Post a Comment