I’m feeling that a better term for it would be Article 5150…
<smirk>
I, for one, would be delighted to learn that tomorrow’s history books will, when presenting lists of Prime Ministers, include next to Johnson’s name, a little picture of a diminutive Gaul with the pigtails, the heroic mustachios, the Mjollnir-like hammer, and the take-no-shit-from-anybody demeanor.
Crap. Decidedly NON-Mjollnir-like short sword, then.
Sadly not. He is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - “Al” within his family, apparently.
Dumb question from an American observing the Brexit mess from a distance; Boris Johnson wanted to be prime minister, as I understand it, because he’s in favor of Brexit. So has he any plans for carrying it out while addressing the Irish border issue (the backstop, I think it’s called) and how Britain will handle customs for goods going to and from the continent? (Along with many other issues, like what happens to the millions of Europeans living and working in the UK.)
Because it sounds a bit like the Republican opposition to the ACA (i.e., Obamacare); they hate the thing but have never managed to suggest a workable alternative.
Boris wanted to be PM…/ENDS
Everything else was secondary to and in pursuit of this goal. The guy who used to be a pro EU Mayor of London, decided that the Leave campaign in the referendum (which he expected to lose) was the best option for him politically.
Unfortunately, the dog caught the car.
Yes. It would have been wise to supplement his strategy for attaining the office with a follow-on strategy for retaining it.
Again, see dog catch car.
The high court has ruled that the prorogation was lawful, and given leave to appeal. A Scottish court recently made a similar ruling in a case brought there.
This looks like a victory for Johnson, but it’s really just a step in a formal dance. Everyone knows that a case of this magnitude is only going to be decided by the Supreme Court, but you can’t just start there, you’ve got to work your way up. None of the lower courts are going to stick their neck out and rule against the government or the Crown, so everyone has to act out their part in the ritual before we get to the actual event. How the Supreme Court will actually rule I wouldn’t like to say, mind, but nothing of great import will happen until it gets to them a week on Tuesday.
And even this would be dishonest unless the Leavers come to the referendum with a single, specific plan for how they’re going to handle everything Brexit would entail, including Ireland and trade deals and having enough food and medicine for the UK if it leaves the EU.
You can’t, after all, ask people to vote for your plan unless and until you have a plan.
This may be a stupid question, but suppose Parliament said “we aren’t going to figure out a solution to this Brexit situation. We’re going to temporarily become an absolute monarchy and let Her Majesty decide everything and when it is settled, we go on to business as usual.” Is that theoretically possible?
If Parliament really wanted to, they probably could. They’d have to pass a Bill that started something like “Notwithstanding the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701)…”, which would be a courageous move. 
Why, oh why, do the American posters on this Board keep suggesting that the solution to this extremely difficult political crisis is to abandon democracy and the rule of law and revert to absolutism? Would you ever suggest that as a solution to political problems in the US?
And what makes you think that Grammie Lilibet can suddenly pull a solution out of her purse that no-one else, experienced politicians and public figures, could figure out? A 93 year old who has never stood for elected office, never run a public ministry, never had any training in economics and trade?
And what would you say if Absolute Monarch Lillibet says :
“Our loyal subjects, we declare that we have thought all along that Boris and Rees-Mogg were right. We therefore hereby declare that we, the British people, are leaving the EU on October 31.”
"We further declare that it is Our Royal Pleasure that there shall be no protests in the streets, and no letters to the editor critical of Our decision. Nor shall there be any elections. "
“We further declare that it is Our Royal Pleasure that any newspaper editor, or tv program manager, or bloggers, who publishes anything critical of this decision is off to the Tower.”
“And We further declare and enjoin our faithful subjects to govern themselves accordingly, and command our dutiful police and loyal military to enforce this, Our Royal Decree.”
“Oh, and one more thing: Suck it up, buttercups!”
You’d still be okay with making her will be the law?
What really seems to be happening that these posters are projecting their own views of what is right and proper onto Her Majesty, and assuming that she would “do the right thing,” i.e what they would do if they had the power.
But English and British history is a centuries long story of people realising that you can’t rely on one all-powerful person to do the right thing. That’s why there are elections, and laws, and courts, and a nice little granny with a purse who says non-political comforting things.
As one (fictional) American President said : “Democracy isn’t easy. It’s hard.” But it’s the best we’ve got.
Cite?
Well yes, it is theoretically possible to pose a question that stupid, indeed QED.
In terms of impossibly simplistic and saccharine sweet solutions to intractably complex real world problems, you wouldn’t find that scenario in the wildest dreams of Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm.
Despite the big smiley that may be the answer that begins to reduce the ignorance of those of us who do not know.
We are in America realizing that our checks and balances do not protect us from autocracy as much as we thought (no hijack intended). Johnson’s actions seem to some of us like an attempt to move to autocracy there. Asking how secure the institutions of democracy (representational or otherwise) are in the U.K. and how they are secure is no stupid question in these times. Not to those of us honest about our ignorance anyway.
I was merely asking a question if something was possible. Didn’t need to get anyone’s panties in a twist. If I was a British subject, I’d be perfectly happy if the Queen had the authority to say “The referendum is void, we’re not leaving the EU”.
Would you be equally content if the Queen said “The referendum was fair and we’re leaving the EU” ?
But more to the point, why ask such a fundamentally anti-democratic question? What would your reaction be if a British person asked “Couldn’t the problems the US faces be resolved if you made Trump dictator, like the Roman Republic used to do in a crisis?”