Now we know what ‘Taking back control' really means. Boris Johnson has announced this morning that he plans that parliament should be prorogued from early September to mid-October to prevent MPs having the chance to block and illegal No Deal Brexit.
There are a number of obvious thoughts that follow.
First, no one since Charles I has, as far as I can recall, tried such a move. It did not end well then.
Second, there will be a legal challenge.
Third, hopefully there will be parliamentary challenge and he will, as a result, I hope be prevented from doing this.
Fourth, I am hoping there will be mass opposition.
Fifth, I rather hope that the EU will respond by deferring the date of departure. This move challenges its whole ethos, which is built on the principle of parliamentary democracy, which is being suspended in this case.
Sixth, I hope this backfires badly for him: whilst I suspect the diehard No Dealers will applaud surely those more marginal will see that an argument that can only be won by denying the right of parliament is an argument not worth winning.
Seventh, I sincerely hope business speaks out: they cannot want this either.
But standing back from all that there is something more significant than all of those issues in isolation. What we are witnessing is an evolving constitutional crisis that amounts to be neoconservative revolution.
Let's not pretend that there is anything normal about this. There is not.
And let's not pretend that anymore should therefore accept this, including the Queen, whose duty it is to reject what Johnson says or to cease to have a constitutional role.
Countries succumb to non-parliamentary rule in all sorts of ways. It would appear that this is the British way. It has to be tackled head on. I repeat, this is not a crisis: this is a revolution. And a very ugly one.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I repeat this, having put it in a comment on an earlier post today, https://www.foundrychambers.com/on-sunday-11-august-2019-rose-slowe-was-interviewed-by-richard-foster-on-bbc-radio-5-about-article-50-and-the-legality-of-a-no-deal-brexit/ as it seems to suggest the EU need do nothing to prevent Brexit as without the necessary act of parliament, A50, on which it is conditional, simply expires. Perhaps your mate Jolyon, who seems to be thinking along the same lines, should have a word with this lady. I understand from Facebook, where I’ve been spreading it, other chambers are in agreement with this interpretation of the law.
They seem to be on a wavelength
Bill, the interviewer doesn’t say when Art 50 would be considered to have lapsed. When that might be is not discussed.
Logically 31/10
If an Act has not been secured by then the notice fails
Thanks for the clarification, Richard.
I received an email yesterday indicating that the Crowdjustice case brought by Jo Maugham has been adjusted. They said:
Readers will note from paragraph 37 that we contend that: “as a matter of constitutional law, the United Kingdom Government may not permit a ‘no deal Brexit’ unless and until explicit statutory authorisation from the Union Parliament is provided in the form of primary legislation to this effect.” And that the courts would, in certain circumstances, “be obliged to pronounce a mandatory order ordaining the United Kingdom Government duly to revoke, prior to exit day, its Article 50 TEU withdrawal notification.”
I’ve also just found a rather lengthy (and linguistically dense) rebuttal to the ‘Three Knights Opinion’ which serves as the basis of the ‘primary legislation is required’ argument, from way back in 2017: https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/02/17/the-three-knights-opinion-on-brexit-a-response/
I’m astonished we have not heard more about this possibility before now.
The case is scheduled to be heard on Friday 6th Sept.
The Crowdjustice page is at:
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/dont-suspend-parliament/?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Update21902078onSuspendingParliamentistheactofadictatorWecantallowitAugust282019&utm_medium=email
From whom do we receive our information? Mostly politicians and the media, both of which have considerable skin in the game and thus agendas with priorities possibly over and above full disclosure.
On the BBC news channel this morning, the business correspondent claimed he had travelled around the country and business “just wants to get on with it’ and ‘end the uncertainty. They have survived worse before, like the financial crisis. They will cope; they just want to know. In many cases it will only involve small changes like labelling. In other more complicated cases they are wondering about immigration.’ This is not an exact quote, except for the first sentence.
If ‘Yellowhammer’ is correct, this suggests that either the people he spoke to are uninformed or complacent OR he is being very optimistic.
All of them
And let’s also be honest – for some business this is no big deal
If you import and export it is
And the rest don’t realise how that might impact them
I’d call it ‘the small world business view’
Richard Murphy says:
“— for some business this is no big deal. If you import and export it is.”
…or if your business requires customers (ie people with an income) ….
As you suggest some don’t foresee the impact.
the example of John Major proroguing parliament has been cited.
However even without Parliament blocking, the EU can simply (and has indicated) it would let the deadline expire with no extension – regardless of what Parliament thinks – a point you have noted previously. So it’s a stretch to paint the situation as entirely dependent on Parliament (prorogued or sitting)
Article 50 requires that our constitution be complied with as I recall
@ Teflon Don
Interesting fact there, I didn’t realise that John Major had prorogued parliament in 1997 – I wasn’t even 10 at the time though, so hopefully you can forgive me.
The intimations that Major’s and Johnson’s prorogation’s (is that the correct word) are comparable is stretching it a little bit (and I’m not accusing you of doing that, just the few articles I’ve skimmed over).
Leaving aside the magnitude of impact each prorogue had/will have, Major also called a general election so change of governance was possible (and did happen as we all know). Johnson just seems to be playing to prevent anyone from being able to prevent a No Deal Brexit. Halloween this year will indeed be a scary night if Johnson’s plans go through.
This is a reaction to the second brilliant move by Labour in as many weeks. The so-called anti-brexiteers are caught and need extracting from having to force an election to stop the hard brexit.
And can someone remind Mr Corbyn that there is no fence left to sit on…
On a related note & not so far raised – has anybody taken a look at what sterling was doing in the hours before the announcement. Somebody was selling £ – not vast quantities but over a couple of hours & enough to push prices down (which then did a little up-ping just before crashing down). Talking to a couple of city contacts the rumour is that some outfits in Dublin were doing a fair bit of selling – which is where Rees Smoogs outfit is based. My guess & it’s a guess, is that the tories in the know were placing side bets & tipping off those who might be needed for party funding come the election (you scratch mine – I’ll scratch yours – style of).
I have various creen shots – they make for interesting viewing.
The Queen cannot stop Johnson prorogueing as if she did it would create the state v royalty conditions that can act as a precursor to civil war.
So she and the monarchy have to go then
The pretence that she has a role is over
When the MPs overwhelmingly agreed to article 50, they were implicitly agreeing to no deal, if in the intervening period, they could not find a deal that would command majority support.
No they were not
That is quite explicitly not true
The way PM on the BBC portrayed it was that it us Remainers who are wrong – representative parliamentary democracy has long been replaced by populist democracy – did we not realise!!??
Oh well – thanks for the clarification! And just when was this change ratified and put in the constitution?
Answer: It hasn’t, it wasn’t and it never will be. We voted to leave – true – but we did not vote to leave in these circumstances.
This is just made up politics. The Scottish Tory leader could go – and what of any whets in Johnson’s administration? Hopefully they will do the right thing.
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
“…… The Scottish Tory leader could go …”
Will anyone notice ?
If she’s making some grand gesture, I’m buggered if I know what it is. And I live here; there’s not going to be as much as a ripple of interest south of the border is there ?
Wrong Andy
She is very popular south if the border
This will be noticed
Richard Murphy says:
“She is very popular south of the border.”
A triumph for media hype then. Perhaps distance lends enchantment.
…..and indicative of the appalling standard of what else is on offer 🙁