The Guardian view on proroguing parliament: an affront to democracy
Boris Johnson has written many dishonest things in his life, but few as consequential as the letter sent on Wednesday to MPs explaining his decision to seek a prorogation of parliament. The prime minister says that a new Commons session is needed to enact a bold and ambitious legislative agenda. To that end the current session must be closed. His plan envisages a Queens speech in the middle of October.
No one is fooled, although government ministers make fools of themselves by parroting their leaders line. Prorogation is a device to silence parliament during a critical period approaching the 31 October Brexit deadline. Mr Johnson cannot be sure of majority support in the Commons for a withdrawal agreement and he would certainly not have the numbers for leaving the EU without one. So he wants to dispense with legislative scrutiny altogether.
Sign up to our Brexit weekly briefing
Read more
The chosen method for pursuing that goal observes the letter of the law, but in spirit it is revolutionary and dangerous. John Bercow, the Commons speaker, calls it a constitutional outrage and opposition MPs have decried what they see as a full-frontal assault on British democracy. At the intemperate end of the rhetorical spectrum (amplified on social media), Mr Johnsons move is decried as a coup and a step down the slippery slope towards dictatorship.
Hyperbole is inevitable at times of political stress and it is true that Mr Johnson is pushing the UK into a constitutional crisis. But to properly assess the gravity of the situation it helps also to keep it in perspective. This is a cynical, premeditated blow against the principle of parliamentary democracy but it is not a total subversion of the constitutional order on a par with a military putsch. The prime minister is exhibiting the irresponsible arrogance of which he has long been known capable. But he is also operating within the technical parameters of what the British political system allows in all its archaic peculiarity.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/28/the-guardian-view-on-proroguing-parliament-an-affront-to-democracy
King_Klonopin
(1,306 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)... The use of these prerogative powers, once exercised by a monarch to get around the tiresome practices of a democratic practice, have never been effectively repealed. They lurk behind the scenes until such an occasion as this and now reside in the hands of the executive. However, monarchs were enjoined to understand that they were used, even in the past, with extreme caution. When they were not, they could inspire dramatic and revolutionary reactions.
In March 1629, Charles I grew tired of a parliament which would not support financially, or otherwise, his disastrous and expensive foreign policy errors and ordered the dissolution of parliament. The MPs were so incensed when speaker John Finch announced the closure of the session, they promptly left their seats and sat on him. Holding him in the chair meant that he could not rise from his seat, and thus close the house. While he writhed under at least five members, the MPs passed a series of motions condemning the kings policies. It may well be that this should be considered a valid response to Johnsons actions. On the other hand, as the current speaker, John Bercow, has called Johnsons decision a constitutional outrage it seems unlikely that he will need sitting on. The closure of parliament in 1629 led to ten years of extra-parliamentary rule in England and Wales known variously as Charles Is Personal Rule or the 11 Years Tyranny.
The Scots rejected the kings use of executive power in November 1638 when he tried to close down Scottish assemblies as well. No one was sat upon: this time his representative, the Marquis of Hamilton, tried to close the assembly by leaving the chamber. The door was locked against him: the key hidden. This time the meeting did not end: the kings powers were severely dented. When the Westminster parliament again met in 1640, it was because the Scottish crisis had led to two wars, both of which Charles Is extra-parliamentary government lost and bankrupted. Despite again using his prerogative powers to close the first parliament of 1640 after just three weeks, it got worse. The second parliament called that year passed two acts intended to secure its position in the constitution. The Triennial Act of February 1641 ended a monarchs right to summon parliaments: a later act prevented one from closing or proroguing a parliament without its consent. Were this still the case, Johnson would not be able to get a majority to back prorogation.
This act made it impossible for the king to use his prerogative power to prorogue or close parliament. Not surprisingly, the Edinburgh parliament had already done the same thing. With the breakdown in trust between parliament and the executive across the British Isles, revolution followed and the monarchy fell a few years later...
What followed was the English Civil War.
Do we really want to go back to the 17th century, asks Fleet Street Fox
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-civil-war-19021739
... We are about to get a crash course in the English Civil War, with the exciting possibility that some of us will learn what living in the 17th century was really like. Then, Cavaliers and Roundheads spent 9 bloody years slaughtering a tenth of the population in a row about whether or not the King was in charge. After another 40-odd years of bitter argument, not helped by the fact a king was rendered 8 inches shorter than nature intended, we had a Glorious Revolution and laws for a constitutional monarchy, under which we have been united ever since.
But Ireland was destroyed. The Army stopped MPs entering Parliament. Millions suffered with starvation and disease as a small nubbin of zealots on both sides battled it out with sword, cannon and proto-propaganda. It is worth noting that the opponents each claimed to be on the side of "the people". And journalists may wish to note that pro-Royalist and pro-Roundhead publications were used to spread fake news - both sides declared victory at the Battle of Naseby in 1645. Throw forward to pro-Brexit papers proclaiming a "new deal" with the EU, while others say it's the same one we've voted down three times already.
Now that Boris Johnson has announced a longer-than-usual closure of Parliament we can expect a fervently Brexity MP to start quoting Oliver Cromwell when he dismissed the Rump Parliament of 1653. "It is high time for me to put an end your sitting in this place... ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government... You who were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance," he thundered. "Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"
He'd have a point, if he were to see what Parliament has done with Brexit. It has voted to leave, voted down a deal, voted down not having a deal, voted down not leaving. In future, it will be known as the Plughole Parliament, because it has gone around in ever-decreasing circles...