Contacting a foreign power and asking them to do something is un sporting at best and against ministerial guidelines. The MP has also opened himself up to a lot of criticism. He has a Polish name. Some people are going to find that suspect.
Contacting a foreign power and asking them to do something is un sporting at best and against ministerial guidelines. The MP has also opened himself up to a lot of criticism. He has a Polish name. Some people are going to find that suspect.
What a load of shite. There is no prohibition or law against writing to foreign powers as a backbench MP.
There are no state secrets being released. It's not being done in secret. There is no suggestion of blackmail or payment.
Mr Cheesy read what I said. I never said what he did was prohibited or against the law I said it was unsporting and against guidelines. No reference to law or restrictions at all. He is free to write if he wishes. Do not put words into my mouth. Over the years I have learned to be very careful what I write on the Ship particularly in hell. I write what I mean, please don’t reinterpret it.
Mr Cheesy read what I said. I never said what he did was prohibited or against the law I said it was unsporting and against guidelines. No reference to law or restrictions at all. He is free to write if he wishes. Do not put words into my mouth. Over the years I have learned to be very careful what I write on the Ship particularly in hell. I write what I mean, please don’t reinterpret it.
I'm sorry I was responding to the previous few posts not directly to yours. I didn't mean to quote your post.
But you are still wrong. He's not a minister, there are no guidelines for backbench MPs.
This is such a strange thing to get worked up about.
And I'm reasonably sure that many MPs regularly write to foreign powers. They certainly arrange visits and talk to them.
In return most of those foreign powers understand that they're talking to individual elected Members of Parliament who are only speaking for themselves.
I'm sure the Polish PM thanked this guy for his thoughts and then totally ignored him.
The current whisper is that Treeza will ignore the EU's clear signal that they won't accept any change to the Irish Backstop as this will apparently 'strengthen her position.'
First time I ever heard that continuing to bang your head against a brick wall made your position stronger, but I suppose all will become clear one day.
The current whisper is that Treeza will ignore the EU's clear signal that they won't accept any change to the Irish Backstop as this will apparently 'strengthen her position.'
First time I ever heard that continuing to bang your head against a brick wall made your position stronger, but I suppose all will become clear one day.
It probably gains her respect with the headbangers...
Again, it seems like a shared delusion; that no-deal is so bad for the EU that they'll offer a better deal to account for the whims of British Tory and DUP MPs.
I've had to recuse myself from these discussions for now to make sure I don't disclose information to which I've become party professionally, but speaking in a personal capacity I agree that any notion of the EU agreeing to a deal that would appease the Brextremists is delusional.
The thing is, breaching the ministerial code means you get sacked as a minister. That is not really too serious - not a police matter, and not losing your seat as an MP. And, as has been shown quite often, it normally just needs a few months off before you get invited back again.
Personally, I think both of them should be carted off to jail to rot there. They are betraying their country and abusing their position.
The thing is, breaching the ministerial code means you get sacked as a minister. That is not really too serious - not a police matter, and not losing your seat as an MP. And, as has been shown quite often, it normally just needs a few months off before you get invited back again.
Personally, I think both of them should be carted off to jail to rot there. They are betraying their country and abusing their position.
Who are you talking about now?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've written to a lot of foreign governments in my life - suggesting that I think they ought to change their course of action, particularly with regard to human rights. It's something that Amnesty International actively ask people to do.
I can't see that doing such a thing as a Member of Parliament in London makes it any kind of betrayal.
It's a different thing if they are doing it as a Government Minister - when running off to meet with foreign government ministers without properly notifying the authorities might conceivably be a breach of protocol.
But even there it isn't really any kind of betrayal - other than perhaps a personal betrayal of the PM and officials. And quite possibly creating a mess that someone else has to clean up.
There is the Logan Act here in the US that bars unauthorized individuals from conferring with a foreign government involved in a dispute with the US. People accused Michael Flynn for doing this in his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the Trump transition while Obama was still President. Not sure if a similar law exists in the UK, but would it consider Brexit a "dispute"? I am also not sure what the definition of "conferring" is.
There is the Logan Act here in the US that bars unauthorized individuals from conferring with a foreign government involved in a dispute with the US. People accused Michael Flynn for doing this in his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the Trump transition while Obama was still President. Not sure if a similar law exists in the UK, but would it consider Brexit a "dispute"? I am also not sure what the definition of "conferring" is.
I'm fairly sure that this doesn't exist. It would be fairly unremarkable for a group of British parliamentarians to visit various places abroad, some which might not be on best terms with the UK government.
That said, I suppose it can be said that there are more countries 'in dispute' with the USA than the UK.
Also I guess it would be a different thing if a British parliamentarian visited a foreign country that we were actively at war with.
I'd guess most MPs have had constituents come to them having run into assorted problems while overseas (been involved in an accident, done something inadvertently wrong, fallen ill and finding their insurance was inadequate, been a victim of crime ....) and written to the authorities there on behalf of their constituents. I don't see anything wrong with that, in fact I'd say there was something wrong if they didn't.
Also many MPs are known for particular views on different subjects. If invited to attend a conference on something they're interested in, should they not go because it's in another country or other speakers are members of other governments? Should Green MPs/MSPs turn down invites to attend the Green Party conference in another country? Or Tories attending the conferences of other far-right parties elsewhere? These are also entirely appropriate.
I'd put two caveats. 1. that anything not directly related to their roles as MP (or minister) is not undertaken at the public expense (use their own money, or funding from their parties or other supporters). 2. everything is done above board, with disclosure to Parliament and the public about what they're doing (with possible censoring some details such as names of constituents needing help) and where funding is from.
I think the thing that people are objecting to in this case is the MP writing to the Polish leader asking him to vote in a certain way. The MP is trying to affect the outcome of a vote.
This is not the same as sending a delegation. Of course the Polish leader can just bin it.
Sending the letter goes against the idea of fair play. Not that that means much any more.
I think the thing that people are objecting to in this case is the MP writing to the Polish leader asking him to vote in a certain way. The MP is trying to affect the outcome of a vote.
This is not the same as sending a delegation. Of course the Polish leader can just bin it.
Sending the letter goes against the idea of fair play. Not that that means much any more.
Oh right. A delegation is different to a letter because the latter is attempting to affect a vote. What bullshit.
No such historical notion of parliamentary fair play exists. You are just making it up.
I think the thing that people are objecting to in this case is the MP writing to the Polish leader asking him to vote in a certain way. The MP is trying to affect the outcome of a vote.
In which case, the (potential) problem is displaced to Poland - should the Polish government be swayed by letters/delegations from non-citizens? If the Polish government choose to vote because of a letter from a British MP then they can do so, and defend that decision before the Polish people, Sejm, Senate and (possibly) courts,
I wonder what would happen if the senior management of a company were to visit the offices of a rival, without telling their bosses, and talk about things? Or write a letter to the board of another company asking it to use its share vote (say) in a specific way?
Woudl they be demoted but allowed to continue? Or, if they were doing it secretly, would they be at risk of charges of industrial espionage?
OK, maybe I was angry. But it seems that the actions of MPs that undermine our own processes and systems are treated as trivial. They are not, but while they are seen as such, politicians will continue to behave as they wish.
And, FWIW, I think there are a number of politicians who should be heading for prison. Fortunately for them (and everyone else), I don't run things.
I wonder what would happen if the senior management of a company were to visit the offices of a rival, without telling their bosses, and talk about things? Or write a letter to the board of another company asking it to use its share vote (say) in a specific way?
Woudl they be demoted but allowed to continue? Or, if they were doing it secretly, would they be at risk of charges of industrial espionage?
OK, maybe I was angry. But it seems that the actions of MPs that undermine our own processes and systems are treated as trivial. They are not, but while they are seen as such, politicians will continue to behave as they wish.
And, FWIW, I think there are a number of politicians who should be heading for prison. Fortunately for them (and everyone else), I don't run things.
Members of Parliament are not the same as board members of a corporation.
MPs are just private citizens. Generally speaking they can do what private citizens can do - albeit if they misuse their position then they feel the full weight of the law.
But writing an open letter to a foreign power containing no state secrets is in no sense misuse.
On the basis of my direct experience, a parliamentary delegation of any nature travelling to a third country is much more fraught with protocol than an MP sending a letter to a representative of one.
Brexit is an unprecedented circumstance. We have never been here before. We cannot predict how any action will affect the situation. Some people will find his action as an individual unacceptable.
He is free to do what he likes within the law. It was just not very helpful.
My point is that Bercow's departure from precedent may well turn out to have been counter-productive at this particular juncture, in that by strengthening the powers of the legislature compared to the executive (pace@orfeo ), he has allowed an executive process that it's important to keep a handle on to run amok and get bogged down.
My point is that Bercow's departure from precedent may well turn out to have been counter-productive at this particular juncture, in that by strengthening the powers of the legislature compared to the executive (pace@orfeo ), he has allowed an executive process that it's important to keep a handle on to run amok and get bogged down.
Mr Cheesy read what I said. I never said what he did was prohibited or against the law I said it was unsporting and against guidelines. No reference to law or restrictions at all. He is free to write if he wishes. Do not put words into my mouth. Over the years I have learned to be very careful what I write on the Ship particularly in hell. I write what I mean, please don’t reinterpret it.
I'm sorry I was responding to the previous few posts not directly to yours. I didn't mean to quote your post.
But you are still wrong. He's not a minister, there are no guidelines for backbench MPs.
This is such a strange thing to get worked up about.
Some decades ago a back-bench MP attended a couple of funerals and met some representatives of persons connected with a terrorist organisation. Circumstances have changed and he and the party he now leads have been widely castigated for this. OTOH the Prime Minister has arranged a parliamentary alliance with a party that has very close links to a terrorist organisation. There's a clear difference between acting as an MP who is not on the government or opposition front benches and acting in ones role as a minister, let alone the Prime minister or the Cabinet as a whole.
I might not say that, but the trouble with throwing precedent out the window in an attempt to counter that is that it opens more Pandora's boxes and thus increases uncertainty and the potential for chaos. I'd say Bercow has in fact increased the chances of No Deal by increasing the scope to debate options that it's far to late to start examining now, instead of concentrating minds on the realistic options.
By virtue of the oath, or affirmation, of allegiance taken by all Members when they are elected to the House, Members have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to law.
Surely, asking a foreign power to act in a certain way that potentially could frustrate the will of HM Government is deeply problematic. Deeply.
One of the most profitable rebukes I ever received was "you can write what you like, provided it's not on headed paper".
As far as I can see, MPs can write whatever they like to whomever they like without it being in the least bit treasonous, provided they are not invoking powers that are not theirs to invoke without prior consultation.
In diplomatic relations, however, letters are usually only a formalisation of something broadly agreed by the parties and thrashed out by their respective officers beforehand. Any letter that hasn't been sent without this sort of protocol being observed is likely to have zero impact - aside from the spin the media choose to put on it.
Treeza has now come out in the open and stated that the deal which she agreed with the EU and which she had repeatedly said was the only possible one, now 'needs to be renegotiated.' And the EU, predictably, have said, in effect, 'Bugger that for a game of soldiers.'
Is the woman actually certifiable? Is it time for the men in white coats to take her away for treatment for her delusions?
the trouble with throwing precedent out the window ... is that it opens more Pandora's boxes and thus increases uncertainty and the potential for chaos.
As throwing the precedents for organising a referendum in 2016 has amply demonstrated.
Three possibilities on March 29th: No deal Brexit, Unpopular deal Brexit, Delayed or cancelled Brexit.
All of these are quite likely to create unrest. Sufficient unrest will cause the invocation of the Civil Contingencies Act, giving the government (actually the sitting PM) virtually unlimited powers. Who could possibly gain from this?
FUCK YOU THERESA MAY
FUCK YOU DAVID CAMERON
FUCK YOU JACOB REES-MOGG
FUCK YOU EVERY FUCKING TORY MP
You are systematically fucking this once decent country*. You have blood on your hands. There will be more deaths, more blood. You are bleeding this country, destroying everything decent, for the sake of your own pockets. You will rot in hell, the very lowest circle.
The current inhabitants of the lowest circle of Hell will get digging to make an even lower circle of Hell as sharing there corner of Hell with the current Tory MPs will be cruel and unusual punishment.
Comments
What a load of shite. There is no prohibition or law against writing to foreign powers as a backbench MP.
There are no state secrets being released. It's not being done in secret. There is no suggestion of blackmail or payment.
He is misguided but this is no sense treason.
I'm sorry I was responding to the previous few posts not directly to yours. I didn't mean to quote your post.
But you are still wrong. He's not a minister, there are no guidelines for backbench MPs.
This is such a strange thing to get worked up about.
In return most of those foreign powers understand that they're talking to individual elected Members of Parliament who are only speaking for themselves.
I'm sure the Polish PM thanked this guy for his thoughts and then totally ignored him.
First time I ever heard that continuing to bang your head against a brick wall made your position stronger, but I suppose all will become clear one day.
It probably gains her respect with the headbangers...
It is not clear that this will make any difference. The EU most recently said it wouldn't. The backstop stays.
My head hurts.
Weeping tears of rage.
The thing is, breaching the ministerial code means you get sacked as a minister. That is not really too serious - not a police matter, and not losing your seat as an MP. And, as has been shown quite often, it normally just needs a few months off before you get invited back again.
Personally, I think both of them should be carted off to jail to rot there. They are betraying their country and abusing their position.
Who are you talking about now?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've written to a lot of foreign governments in my life - suggesting that I think they ought to change their course of action, particularly with regard to human rights. It's something that Amnesty International actively ask people to do.
I can't see that doing such a thing as a Member of Parliament in London makes it any kind of betrayal.
It's a different thing if they are doing it as a Government Minister - when running off to meet with foreign government ministers without properly notifying the authorities might conceivably be a breach of protocol.
But even there it isn't really any kind of betrayal - other than perhaps a personal betrayal of the PM and officials. And quite possibly creating a mess that someone else has to clean up.
But prison? What are you talking about?
I'm fairly sure that this doesn't exist. It would be fairly unremarkable for a group of British parliamentarians to visit various places abroad, some which might not be on best terms with the UK government.
That said, I suppose it can be said that there are more countries 'in dispute' with the USA than the UK.
Also I guess it would be a different thing if a British parliamentarian visited a foreign country that we were actively at war with.
I'm not sure even then.
Also many MPs are known for particular views on different subjects. If invited to attend a conference on something they're interested in, should they not go because it's in another country or other speakers are members of other governments? Should Green MPs/MSPs turn down invites to attend the Green Party conference in another country? Or Tories attending the conferences of other far-right parties elsewhere? These are also entirely appropriate.
I'd put two caveats. 1. that anything not directly related to their roles as MP (or minister) is not undertaken at the public expense (use their own money, or funding from their parties or other supporters). 2. everything is done above board, with disclosure to Parliament and the public about what they're doing (with possible censoring some details such as names of constituents needing help) and where funding is from.
This is not the same as sending a delegation. Of course the Polish leader can just bin it.
Sending the letter goes against the idea of fair play. Not that that means much any more.
Oh right. A delegation is different to a letter because the latter is attempting to affect a vote. What bullshit.
No such historical notion of parliamentary fair play exists. You are just making it up.
Woudl they be demoted but allowed to continue? Or, if they were doing it secretly, would they be at risk of charges of industrial espionage?
OK, maybe I was angry. But it seems that the actions of MPs that undermine our own processes and systems are treated as trivial. They are not, but while they are seen as such, politicians will continue to behave as they wish.
And, FWIW, I think there are a number of politicians who should be heading for prison. Fortunately for them (and everyone else), I don't run things.
Members of Parliament are not the same as board members of a corporation.
MPs are just private citizens. Generally speaking they can do what private citizens can do - albeit if they misuse their position then they feel the full weight of the law.
But writing an open letter to a foreign power containing no state secrets is in no sense misuse.
Well possibly, I suppose it depends what you mean exactly.
In the British HoC "protocol" which leads to parliamentary sanction relates to language, declaring interests, financial claims etc.
I don't believe that there is any sense that an MP making a public plea to a foreign power is any kind of breach of protocol.
He is free to do what he likes within the law. It was just not very helpful.
Precedents are there to be disregarded (rather than broken), when the circumstances are not precisely those to which the precedent refers.
And Treeza was 'keeping a handle' on it?
Some decades ago a back-bench MP attended a couple of funerals and met some representatives of persons connected with a terrorist organisation. Circumstances have changed and he and the party he now leads have been widely castigated for this. OTOH the Prime Minister has arranged a parliamentary alliance with a party that has very close links to a terrorist organisation. There's a clear difference between acting as an MP who is not on the government or opposition front benches and acting in ones role as a minister, let alone the Prime minister or the Cabinet as a whole.
I might not say that, but the trouble with throwing precedent out the window in an attempt to counter that is that it opens more Pandora's boxes and thus increases uncertainty and the potential for chaos. I'd say Bercow has in fact increased the chances of No Deal by increasing the scope to debate options that it's far to late to start examining now, instead of concentrating minds on the realistic options.
I suspect there's a good argument that the Code of Conduct for MPs is relevant here:
Surely, asking a foreign power to act in a certain way that potentially could frustrate the will of HM Government is deeply problematic. Deeply.
Although probably not actually illegal.
AFZ
As far as I can see, MPs can write whatever they like to whomever they like without it being in the least bit treasonous, provided they are not invoking powers that are not theirs to invoke without prior consultation.
In diplomatic relations, however, letters are usually only a formalisation of something broadly agreed by the parties and thrashed out by their respective officers beforehand. Any letter that hasn't been sent without this sort of protocol being observed is likely to have zero impact - aside from the spin the media choose to put on it.
Is the woman actually certifiable? Is it time for the men in white coats to take her away for treatment for her delusions?
All of these are quite likely to create unrest. Sufficient unrest will cause the invocation of the Civil Contingencies Act, giving the government (actually the sitting PM) virtually unlimited powers. Who could possibly gain from this?
Not really.
It's going to be no-deal and nothing anyone can do to stop it.
It really is stunning how much contempt the Conservative Party has for the country.
AFZ
FUCK YOU DAVID CAMERON
FUCK YOU JACOB REES-MOGG
FUCK YOU EVERY FUCKING TORY MP
You are systematically fucking this once decent country*. You have blood on your hands. There will be more deaths, more blood. You are bleeding this country, destroying everything decent, for the sake of your own pockets. You will rot in hell, the very lowest circle.
*Not perfect, but decent.
Maybe a wall from Cheeto Hitler's Discount Xenophobic Emporium might cheer you up?