Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
That's what I thought.

So what is the Times' political correspondent, Henry Zeffman, or, for that matter, Nikki da Costa, on about?

They seem to be implying that the Queen cannot "send for" whoever the HOC might elect without being advised to do so by the incumbent first. (He might claim he still has a chance of winning back the confidence of the House, within 14 days, regardless of the house having temporarily showered its affections on some other non-entity.)

They also seem to be implying that BoJo can run down the clock on the 14 days and then choose an election date of his liking, at his complete discretion, for the ensuing election despite having lost a vote of confidence. (I think they may be correct on this, unless the HOC elects someone else before the 14 days are over).

It may be that "the British Constitution" is very clear on this. But if The Times' political correspondent and senior advisors to BoJo can waffle on like this in seeming ignorance of its provisions, it doesn't bode well for the general populace being well informed...

You seem to be placing great faith in "the law". But you can usually find two lawyers to argue contrasting interpretations, and without an effective, and speedy judicial determination and enforcement mechanism, whatever the law says might well be moot.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Aug 21st, 2019 at 08:46:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series