|
21 Apr 18 - 07:11 AM (#3918925) Subject: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Bonzo3legs House of Commons 17 April 2018 Mr Rees-Mogg: Parliament has done its correct duty—admittedly assisted by you, Mr Speaker—in ensuring that there were six hours of debate yesterday and a further three hours of debate today, but these constitutional issues are not new. Indeed, this matter is at the heart of the Glorious Revolution, and one of the clauses of the Bill of Rights, which is still our law, states that “the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law.” That is why every five years an Armed Forces Bill is passed—to ensure that the armed forces that are available to the Executive are approved by Parliament. This last happened in 2016 when the Armed Forces Act was renewed. On that occasion, the Bill passed Second Reading without a Division, and it passed Third Reading without a Division. There was uniform consent in this House that the armed services should exist on a similar basis to that on which they have existed since 1689. The Leader of the Opposition did not choose to put down an amendment to put any limits on how the armed services could operate. He did not choose to put down an amendment to say that the Government could not act without the specific consent of Parliament. At every stage, the Bill was passed, and it recognised the proper constitutional settlement and the separation of powers. An Executive and a legislature are different things and have different responsibilities. As hon. Members know, I have the highest respect for the leader of the Scottish National party in this House—the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—but I think that he made an error in his speech when he suggested that this House ought to give pre-approval, because the job of the House is to hold the Executive to account, not to try to run the Executive by remote control. Wera Hobhouse: I am very grateful to my neighbour for giving way. Surely this debate is about not a collective decision on the action that has been taken and on putting the armed forces at risk, but a process that we in this House are collectively happy with and agreed on. Clearly the fact that we are having this debate means that there is not a collective agreement about the process. Mr Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, as the Leader of the Opposition was earlier, to say that today’s debate is about process. What I am trying to say is that the process is established, has been established ?for centuries and is highly effective. The Executive are only the Executive as long as they command the confidence of this House. It would have been open to the Opposition, instead of going for a Standing Order No. 24 debate, to have asked for a vote of confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. I think that that would have been the right thing to do, having listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition’s speech. The Opposition fundamentally do not have confidence—or their leadership does not—in the making of this decision. We would then have seen whether this House had confidence in the Executive to make the decisions that are the legitimate business of the Executive. David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) rose— Mr Rees-Mogg: I will not give way again because time is short. If that were to happen, we would know that the use of force had not been agreed by this House, but it is a retrospective agreement. This is established in our constitution and has been for the longest time, and that is very important, because Executives have the confidential information that allows them to make decisions. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber asked why the Cabinet was called when Parliament was not. The obvious reason is that we have Cabinet government in this country. The Prime Minister cannot act on her own; she has to act with the consent of the Cabinet. That is how our constitution functions. Ian Blackford: Would not the hon. Gentleman concede that in the case of any military action since the Iraq war, the consent of Parliament has been sought on every occasion before troops have been engaged? Mr Rees-Mogg: That is not correct. With the bombing raids on Libya, retrospective consent was given by this House; it was not sought in advance. That is the issue that goes to the heart of this matter. Yes, we have a flexible constitution, but it is not right to say that we have no constitution. The flexible constitution allows a Government to come to this House when they are considering certain types of action, when no secret information needs to be given out, and when there might be a long-term plan for an invasion or whatever there is. It also allows the Government the flexibility to act when times are urgent and business is pressing, and when the information is of the greatest sensitivity. That was why I made the point that it was right and inevitable that the Cabinet should be consulted, as that is where power rests, but it is absurd to suggest that the House of Commons could give its consent. In fact, the only way that the House of Commons can consent is by legislation, and then we would need to go to their other end of the Palace and ask their lordships as well. By the time we had passed a law saying that we could engage in conflict, the whole conflict would be over. The issue is that the Armed Forces Act 2016 already covers this question, and that Bill was passed unanimously. This House gives confidence in the Government and controls supply. The armed forces cannot go to war not only if the Armed Forces Bill has not been passed, but if supply is not voted to allow the Army, Navy and Air Force to go about their business. That is where we have control every year over the actions of our military. We have it quinquennially and we have it annually, and we have confidence or not in the Government.? That is our correct and established constitutional situation. There are ways for the Opposition to deal with a Government of whom they do not approve, and that is through a vote of confidence. That they have not chosen to go down that route shows that the opposition is of a pacifist tone. That might be honourable, and it might be noble, but it is different from upsetting our constitution merely to entrench inaction. |
|
21 Apr 18 - 07:26 AM (#3918928) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: DMcG First, let me say I am pleased to see Hansard being quoted, rather than a newspaper's interpretation of what was said. So often we seem to rely on third hand accounts of things. It is an interesting read. But Jacob is well aware that it is up to the person acting for a debate on how they want to have that debate: if they do not wish to hold a confidence vote they are under no obligation at all to go down that path. It may be - and probably is - the case that the Opposition does not have confidence in the government. But unless they think they could win such a debate it is better tactically to take a different path. Since in this case the question is confidence in a single decision rather than overall, it is sensible to do so. |
|
21 Apr 18 - 07:30 AM (#3918930) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Bonzo3legs Yes, I was very interested in the historical aspect of his well informed speech, and I intend to look up Hilary Benn's past speeches as they bound the same extremes of excellence! |
|
21 Apr 18 - 07:41 AM (#3918932) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Jim Carroll THOROUGHLY MODERN MOGGY Jim Carroll |
|
21 Apr 18 - 07:48 AM (#3918934) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Jim Carroll HORSE'S MOUTH MOGISMS Jim Carroll |
|
21 Apr 18 - 08:56 AM (#3918939) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Bonzo3legs Read and learn - "The Leader of the Opposition did not choose to put down an amendment to put any limits on how the armed services could operate. He did not choose to put down an amendment to say that the Government could not act without the specific consent of Parliament. At every stage, the Bill was passed, and it recognised the proper constitutional settlement and the separation of powers. An Executive and a legislature are different things and have different responsibilities." |
|
21 Apr 18 - 09:10 AM (#3918941) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Dave the Gnome You are shoe horning the armed forces act to fit with May's misuse of the armed forces. The act is to ensure that an army is not used inapproprately. Not to allow a single person to use the armed forces without proper authorisation. You obviously have a lot to learn yourself. |
|
21 Apr 18 - 09:12 AM (#3918942) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Jim Carroll ???? Where does that change the fact rthat the many is a friggin' proivelege- obsessed dinosaur? Personally - I hope he is elected as leader of the Tories - that will end what credibility that party has for some time to come Jim Carroll |
|
21 Apr 18 - 09:27 AM (#3918945) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Bonzo3legs Well, as demonstrated this week, Corbyn has little or no credibility within the labour party, other than as being fairly useless!!! |
|
21 Apr 18 - 10:01 AM (#3918951) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Iains Like him or detest him the mog is a force to be reckoned with in the chamber. His command of rhetoric is unsurpassed in the present parliament. |
|
21 Apr 18 - 10:13 AM (#3918953) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Kenny B (inactive) Just a thought and in all innocence. If Rees-Mogg became PM and the conservatives had the same majority as just now, how much would it cost to buy the support of the DUP? |
|
21 Apr 18 - 10:19 AM (#3918954) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Bonzo3legs He really gets up the noses of lefties, just as corbile and abbott get up our noses!!! |
|
21 Apr 18 - 10:21 AM (#3918956) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Iains Limp lettuce to the left - action man to the right! |
|
21 Apr 18 - 10:31 AM (#3918959) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Kenny B (inactive) Iains Isnt an action man someone,s puppet..... but whose? (Smiley) |
|
21 Apr 18 - 11:31 AM (#3918972) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Iains You have to remember he still gets whipped. However, when he is PM the story will change........! |
|
21 Apr 18 - 11:56 AM (#3918975) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Jim Carroll "Like him or detest him the mog is a force to be reckoned with in the chamber." Thankfully, what happens in the Parliamentary piss-por is of little interest to the voting public His appearances on 'HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU' have established him firmly as a figure of fun. Despite the viciousness of the right-wing bumwipe press (and Israel) Corbyn is the only politician who offers something different Whether he lives up to it remains to be seen Sadly, the British public's tendency TOWARDS RACISM , efforts to brand Corbyn an antisemite will have little effect As I said, bring on the Mad Moggie and put paid with these bunch of self-servers once and for all Jim Carroll |
|
21 Apr 18 - 12:02 PM (#3918978) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Iains Well not surprisingly I totally disagree. He is a mighty man against corbyn the wimp. |
|
21 Apr 18 - 12:28 PM (#3918984) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Jim Carroll "He is a mighty man" What do they say "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" Corbyn is still a new kid on the block but I've watched how his Parliamentary performance has improved over the last few months - beats anything your party has to offer Rees-Mogg - are you really ****** serious???? The man's a caricature - pity 'Yes Minister' isn't still on the box Bring him on - please!! - don't forget to bring on his "nanny too" Jim Carroll |
|
21 Apr 18 - 01:03 PM (#3918993) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: punkfolkrocker Lanky posh boy is MP too close to my neck of the woods.. Between him and the rest of the West peninsula [the arse end of England] it's mostly futile voting Labour.. My mum's been doing it over 60 years and never seen Labour win round here... Funnily enough, I think my dad did RAF national service with his dad...!!!??? I vaguely recall dad mentioning him in relation to some off duty ribald shenanigans... But dads been gone over 20 years, and mum can't remember any of his old RAF stories... The only tall tale I partially remember is one about a prostitute who owned a loaded revolver... |
|
21 Apr 18 - 01:04 PM (#3918994) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Dave the Gnome Talking of history, yesterday was the 50th anniversary of Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech. The Tories don't change much do they :-( |
|
21 Apr 18 - 01:18 PM (#3918995) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Iains Naughty boys. You are trying to wind people up! You should join together in search of Corbyn's missing backbone. |
|
21 Apr 18 - 01:24 PM (#3918996) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: punkfolkrocker "William Rees-Mogg 14 July 1928 – 29 December 2012 In 1946-8, beginning with an exceptionally bitter winter, he did his National Service in the Royal Air Force education department (his poor eyesight ruled out aircrew training) rising to the rank of sergeant. His duties included attempting to teach illiterate recruits to read and write, and his reference from his commanding officer stated that he was competent to perform simple tasks under supervision." Facts fit - my dad was conscripted circa 1947, and ended up on ground crew duties training in electronics in some kind of radar bunker - I think... I keep meaning to research my dad & various grandad's [3 in total - and a great grandad] military record, but too many priority distractions... |
|
21 Apr 18 - 01:37 PM (#3919000) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Jim Carroll "You should join together in search of Corbyn's missing backbone. " Easier to call Corbyn names than defend How Much is that Moggie Don't blame you EVERY POLITICIAN NEEDS A NANNY BEHIND HIM Jim Carroll |
|
21 Apr 18 - 01:46 PM (#3919002) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Mr Red just like Marmite. He is divisive, and both in bad taste IMNSHO. <WINKIE> |
|
21 Apr 18 - 03:44 PM (#3919016) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: David Carter (UK) Rees Moggs ancestors sent my ancestors down the coal mines of North East Somerset at age 11. As far as I am concerned, the Rees Moggs havn't changed. |
|
22 Apr 18 - 03:35 AM (#3919076) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Jim Carroll A dream team of Mayfly (who bungs a terrorist linked party £1Billion of the taxpayers money) Braindead Boris, a foreign minister who talks about "piccaninnies" and "watermelon smiles" and now a flea-bitten Moggie, who needs a nanny to wipe his bum before he sets out for work each morning Britain really is in safe hands, eh what!! Jim Carroll |
|
22 Apr 18 - 03:56 AM (#3919078) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Iains Far safer than Corbyn the clown and the abbopotomus. |
|
22 Apr 18 - 04:01 AM (#3919080) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Bonzo3legs Worthwhile if you please!!! |
|
22 Apr 18 - 04:22 AM (#3919085) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Jim Carroll "Far safer than Corbyn the clown and the abbopotomus. " C-mon Iains You have proved you can respond with argument rather than silly name calling each of the Tory "dream-team" has ben delivered with a description of what they have done "Corbyn the clown and the abbopotomus." - really - is that the best you can drum up (apart from the awful physical insulting of a woman politician) Mat as well go the hole hog and demand a bea=uty contest befor you enter parliament This really is infant school stuff Jim Carroll |
|
22 Apr 18 - 05:11 AM (#3919092) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Bonzo3legs But it's absolutely correct, a more clown like pair you could never wish to see in the House of Commons. |
|
22 Apr 18 - 05:26 AM (#3919093) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Jim Carroll There y'are Iains You have the blessings of Bozo Hope it is of some comfort Jim Carroll |
|
22 Apr 18 - 05:33 AM (#3919097) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Kenny B (inactive) Bozo? |
|
22 Apr 18 - 05:49 AM (#3919101) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Steve Shaw You really don't need to be doing that any more, Iains. |
|
22 Apr 18 - 06:48 AM (#3919114) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Dave the Gnome Resorting to insulting a woman based on her appearance says a lot about you, Iains. None of it good. |
|
22 Apr 18 - 07:59 AM (#3919120) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Iains Meanwhile the PM is regarded as fair game by one and all. C'mon Boys don't start squealing when retaliation occurs! |
|
22 Apr 18 - 08:20 AM (#3919124) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Dave the Gnome If I have ever insulted May on her appearance please provide an example. Otherwise your justification is entirely spurious. Not that there is ever any justification for insults based on any physical characteritic. |
|
22 Apr 18 - 09:06 AM (#3919131) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: David Carter (UK) May gets insults from me based upon her vile and vindictive policies. Johnson because he is a serial liar. Gove because he won't listen to people who understand something better than he does. And Fox because he gave a job in Whitehall to an agent of a foreign power. I could insult all of these people on the basis of their appearance, but I choose not to because other reasons are so much better. |
|
22 Apr 18 - 10:13 AM (#3919139) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Bonzo3legs And as for abbott, words escape me!!!!!!! |
|
22 Apr 18 - 10:48 AM (#3919145) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Steve Shaw As indeed do capital letters and most other pointers to civility. |
|
22 Apr 18 - 11:30 AM (#3919151) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Jim Carroll "Meanwhile the PM is regarded as fair game by one and all." For her behaviour - not for her appearance Descriptions of abbot verge on sexism and racism rolled into one "C'mon Boys don't start squealing when retaliation occurs! " How long have you been using the term "Mudrats"? Jim Carroll |
|
22 Apr 18 - 12:18 PM (#3919157) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: McGrath of Harlow As a person I much prefer Moggy over any of his rivals in the Tory Party. I just don't agree with his politics. He could make an excellent leader of the Opposition, for the rest of his life. |
|
22 Apr 18 - 12:38 PM (#3919159) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: punkfolkrocker Having a look round the house of commons.. there's few if any ministers, or MPs of any party, off whom I'd accept an invite to a swingers party...!!! No wonder they need to dress up in tight latex and corsets and wear those feathered fetish masks... ..same goes for most women politicians... |
|
22 Apr 18 - 12:42 PM (#3919160) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Jim Carroll "He could make an excellent leader of the Opposition, for the rest of his life. " He probably will if he's elected leader - can't imagine any party which takes him seriously staying at the helm for long Jim Carroll |
|
22 Apr 18 - 12:52 PM (#3919163) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: McGrath of Harlow The trouble is, they'd scrap him and come up with some glib hypocrite like Cameron, or bluff old Boris to fool the public into giving them another chance. |
|
23 Apr 18 - 04:13 AM (#3919267) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Iains Why do you all not pass your time more productively and discuss why your fearless leader leads the minority opposition party and has as much charisma and power as a wet dishrag? Are you the personification of the politics of envy?? Never mind! |
|
23 Apr 18 - 04:32 AM (#3919272) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Steve Shaw Well he has so little power and charisma that hundreds of thousands of new members joined when he became leader and, against all predictions, he rode out a campaign of ridicule and vilification to demolish Theresa May's majority. What we Labourites would like you to do is more of the same, that is ignore the issues and keep up the personal attacks on Jeremy. It worked wonders for us last time round. By the way, remember Atlee, the chap who founded the NHS in the teeth of Tory opposition? Now there was a man oozing charisma! |
|
23 Apr 18 - 04:43 AM (#3919276) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Bonzo3legs Interesting that Corbyn is always reading from a script - strange that!!! |
|
23 Apr 18 - 05:39 AM (#3919297) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Jim Carroll "Why do you all not pass your time more productively and discuss why your fearless leader leads the minority opposition party and has as much charisma and power as a wet dishrag?" Why to you prefer personal insults to intelligent political discussion ? "Nobody knows" as they say on QI Wsate of time asking you to grow up!! Jim Carroll |
|
23 Apr 18 - 05:42 AM (#3919299) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Nigel Parsons By the way, remember Atlee, the chap who founded the NHS in the teeth of Tory opposition? Now there was a man oozing charisma! I know it's St George's day, but please don't try to wipe the Welsh out of political history. The NHS was founded by Aneurin Bevan. |
|
23 Apr 18 - 06:38 AM (#3919318) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: Steve Shaw Under Atlee, sine qua non. |
|
23 Apr 18 - 08:25 AM (#3919353) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: punkfolkrocker ...and here would the Move and ELO have been without Bevan's powerehouse drumming...!!??? |
|
23 Apr 18 - 08:31 AM (#3919356) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: punkfolkrocker "where".. |
|
24 Apr 18 - 04:27 PM (#3919735) Subject: RE: BS: A worthwile history lesson! From: McGrath of Harlow Actually the "minority opposition party" at Westminster is the SNP. Labour is the "majority opposition party". Best to get these confusing terms correct. While the Tory's are the largest party, they are of course a minority party in the Commons, just the biggest one. |