Last edited Thu Aug 29, 2019, 08:53 AM - Edit history (1)
Ex-Ambassador Craig Murray, who yesterday pointed out that:
... Johnson has been able to take over without facing the electorate because of the polite constitutional fiction that it is the same Conservative government continuing and nothing has changed. Yet he justifies the prorogation of parliament by the argument that it is a new government and a new Queen’s Speech is thus needed. Johnson is of course famously in favour of having cake and eating it, but the chutzpah of this is breathtaking...
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/08/boris-johnson-crosses-the-rubicon-we-must-react-now/Today writes:
... The monarch appoints the UK Prime Minister. The convention is that this must be the person who can command the support of the majority in the House of Commons. That does not necessarily have to be from a single party, it can be via a coalition or pact with other parties, but the essential point, established since Hanoverian times, is that the individual must have a majority in the Commons.
The very appointment of Boris Johnson by Elizabeth Saxe Coburg Gotha was a constitutional outrage. Johnson may have been selected by Conservative Party members, but that is not the qualification to be PM. Johnson very plainly did not command a majority in the House of Commons, proven by the fact that still at no stage has he demonstrated that he does...
... The monarchy will always be an extremely useful institution in promoting the political aims of the upper classes, not least because of the ludicrous media promulgation of its infallibility.
When you have former Prime Minister John Major, senior Tories like Philip Hammond and Michael Heseltine, and the Speaker of the House of Commons himself all talking of “consitutional outrage”, it is plainly preposterous to insist that the monarchy cannot, by definition, have done anything wrong.
The Queen has appointed a Prime Minister who does not have the support of the House of Commons and then has conspired to prevent the House of Commons from obstructing her Prime Minister. That is not the action of a politically neutral monarchy. The institution should have been abolished decades ago. I do hope that all those who recognise the constitutional outrage, will acknowledge the role of the monarchy and that the institution needs to be swiftly abolished...
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/08/the-queens-active-role-in-the-right-wing-coup/Labour MP says the monarchy could be abolished after Queen approves PM's plan to suspend Parliament
Kate Osamor, Labour MP for Edmonton ... wrote:
“The Queen should look at what happened to her cousin Tino ex King of Greece when you enable a right wing coup! Monarchy abolished!” ... Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said he "protested in the strongest possible terms on behalf of my party" in a letter to the Queen and called for a meeting alongside other opposition members of the Privy Council... Senior Labour MP Yvette Cooper said he was
"trying to use the Queen to concentrate power in his own hands" while fellow ex-cabinet minister Ben Bradshaw said the move would
"drag the monarch into an unprecedented constitutional crisis”...
--- The Queen may face more
"treacherous situations" in the weeks ahead after being drawn into the "contentious and divisive" Brexit issue, an expert has said.
Mike Gordon, professor of constitutional law at the University of Liverpool, said if MPs launch a successful no-confidence vote in Boris Johnson, to challenge his proroguing of parliament,
the monarch could be in a difficult position if the Tory leader refuses to resign. While, if the opposition parties manage to get legislation through parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit, the government could
advise the Queen not to give it royal assent and so become law, against accepted convention...
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/labour-mp-says-the-monarchy-could-be-abolished-after-queen-approves-boris-johnsons-plan-to-suspend-parliament-094358752.html 
= new reply since forum marked as read
