This article by who is Professor of Early Modern History, Nottingham Trent University, is on The Conversation this morning and was, I thought well worth sharing as he has the expertise to make points I strongly agree with:
Queen Elizabeth II has consented to a request to prorogue parliament. It is clear that her chief minister, Boris Johnson, intends to compromise the protective bastion of British democracy.
For several centuries the residual powers still held by the monarchy have been used sparingly. For a long time, the British public has been able to comfort itself that these powers are generally dormant. But the decision to suspend the democratically elected House of Commons spells the end for complacency.
The move is a reminder that the UK is still a monarchy. True democracy is under very serious threat. If a government with a graphene thin majority can close parliament using monarchical powers to bypass the fact that it has not got the democratic mandate to attempt such an act, then democracy is doomed.
Former prime minister, John Major, Brexit campaigner, Gina Miller, and many MPs of most parties have made public their determination to prevent Johnson from closing parliament — a move, in their view, designed to drive through a no-deal Brexit.
And there is precedent that will give them hope. It was in early 2017 that Miller won the backing of the Supreme Court to ensure that the then prime minister, Theresa May, could not use monarchical powers to force through a Brexit deal without first getting the consent of parliament.
Murky powers and revolutions
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exercised by a monarch to “get around” the tiresome practices of a democratic practice, have never been effectively repealed.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 king's policies.
It may well be that this should be considered a valid response to Johnson's actions. On the other hand, as the current speaker, John Bercow, has called Johnson's 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 I's Personal Rule or the 11 Years' Tyranny.
The Scots rejected the king's 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 king's 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 I's 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 monarch's 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's French for ‘prorogation'?
It was not only in the British revolutionary period when the threat to elected houses from prerogative powers resulted in drastic action. It was clear by June in 1789 that France's “parliament” the Etat Generaux, the first assembled since 1614, could not be controlled by the executive. Under the pretext of renovation works to the assembly building, King Louis XVI tried to prevent it from sitting. Members moved to a nearby tennis court and took an oath to stay together.
Although this predated the climactic seizure of the Bastille the following month, the decision to remain in session effectively limited the king's power and sealed the fate of the French monarchy. It could be said that the Tennis Court Oath as a reaction to prerogative power was the real beginning of the French Revolution.
Alternative sessions and even locations for parliaments are not new — even Charles I established one during the civil war at Oxford, for example. Now MPs are raising the possibility that an alternative parliament will meet during Johnson's “Personal Rule”. It may be staged in the Palace of Westminster itself as some MPs were suggesting that they, like their 1629 predecessors would remain defiantly in the house when the prime minister prorogues the Commons. And they may well have a figurehead in Bercow.
Events such as prorogations and dissolutions happen when countries face difficult times. Therefore, because of the disastrous effects of Brexit: sterling in freefall; a recession looming on the horizon and Britain's international standing at its lowest ebb since Suez, it is no surprise that the country is in this position now. The worrying thing is that using the monarchical power of prorogation does not solve problems — it has a history of turning them into frightening and often violent crises. There is a worrying relationship between the use of such powers and a complete breakdown in government.
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:
Non story.. the monarchy has ceremonial duties only and is just about tolerated by the public for doing this.. this has been the case through many generations.. to suggest anything else is a waste of time
I would suggest that you are the one being simplistic here
To think the Queen has no influence is quite absurd
Spot on and well worth the repost. It is a striking thought that the great crises of the 17th century, as of the current debacle, had a major part of their roots in Scotland and its distinct – then and now – polity. I also very much agree with your earlier post re the monarch’s abject failure to fulfill her constitutional role. What must that eternal eminence grise, her Private Secretary, have been thinking of to allow this disastrous decision – actually a non-decision – to happen? It would be interesting to hear Peter Hennesy’s reading of the tea-leaves of this operation of what he has called “the chaps’ convention”. Seems to me that the ‘chaps’ have neither read their history nor the mood of the country – and most certainly not of Scotland.
Okay, well, I agree with the very last sentence. But the rest? A bit of a word salad – I am not sure how referring to other countries, with different constitutions, is relevant. That includes Scotland, our relationship with monarchy is completely different, and indeed we even have a different queen. Ours is Queen Elizabeth (I) and the English have Queen Elizabeth II. All the nobility have different titles. We have a different history, and different constitution, and different conventions – using that history tells us nothing and does not support the reasoning.
And anyway, monarchy is the exact opposite of democracy: why would anyone want the monarch overrule a democratic (sort of) decision I don’t understand.
Contrary
Look – can we deal with contemporary factuals here, hmmm?
The Queen was asked to agree to proroguing Parliament as is her ‘role’.
She agreed. Johnson used her to legitimise something that it quite abhorrent from a democratic view and that also has a history of abuse at a time of national crises – now and on the horizon.
The Queen has done as she is told without – it seems to me – question. She and her advisors have not taken into consideration any of the consequences of this agreement for her subjects or even considered how divided the nation is on it and that as a result, around half the population – if not more now – are not only against leaving the EU but also want to do so with as little impact as possible.
Don’t tell me that the Queen is not aware of this. So Liz could have said something or chosen not to get involved. The Monarchy could have been a backstop of sorts to preventing No Deal. Instead she did what she thought was her ‘duty’.
The Queen operates in a sort of vacuum – Leigh is right – this is Lizzies second Princess Di flag moment and her chief advisor instead of being the crafty Blair, is now the mendacious oaf Johnson and she will be much less popular I feel if we end up where I think we are going. Liz has effectively chosen sides. In a perverse way (and these are remember perverse times) I will get some grim satisfaction from that.
She did have a choice. But hey – she’s mega rich – she will not feel a thing comfort wise. And to take counsel from a man like Jacob Rees-Mogg who on the one hand advises his customers not to invest in the UK because of BREXIT but encourages the hoi-polloi to run for the cliffs like lemmings.
Consider Contrary that it is not the monarchy per se that is the problem; rather it is WHO is the monarchy at any given time (and the same goes for the Government).
We are ill served by all of them I’m afraid at the moment. And I hold myself responsible for not doing more. In my view, I’ve wasted my life by allowing a load of idiots to go unchallenged.
Shame on me I say. Guilty as charged and I’ll no doubt get my just desserts.
“In my view, I’ve wasted my life by allowing a load of idiots to go unchallenged.”
I just thought I should acknowledge that your confession is a very brave and honest statement. Its power is that it is a challenging reminder to us all that in everyday life we do not stand up with sufficient determination to the bullies and charlatans that inevitably, and far, far too often float to the top because they are not resisted.
A no-deal Brexit will only happen because ‘decent’ people have not been prepared to stand up to determined bullies.
True
Article 50 itself appears to provide us with a backstop, of sorts, preventing No Deal. Here
“1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”
Crashing out would require, from a constitutional POV, an act of parliament which we have so far not seen. I understand the EU have let it be known they’re looking into the lawfulness of Johnson’s actions for themselves. I would assume this is with a view to rejecting any claims to Brexiting from Johnson’s ersatz government in the absence of what they, the EU, see as the necessary consititutional requirements.
It seems unlikely we’ll be going anywhere for the time being. I’ve ordered extra thyroid meds though, just in case.
I admit I think an EU refusal to accept that we have left is a possibility for this reason
I have mentioned this before
@ Bill Kruse
One of my colleagues commented on the ” in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” part yesterday after I raised it as a glimmer of hope.
His point was fairly convincing (although he admitted he was not happy about the point). His argument was basically that we have put leaving the EU into law, and therefore we have fulfilled our constitutional requirement and so would leave on Oct 31st.
I had no response.
Thoughts?
Let’s see what the courts say
John G, did your colleague say when we put leaving into law? I had someone say something similar to me on FB but when pressed they turned out to be talking about something else entirely. Implementing Article 50, for example, is not the same as committing to leaving. Instead it’s giving notice we’ll be leaving if certain conditions have been met. They haven’t been, and appear unlikely to be, which suggests that come November we’ll stilll be EU members just as we are now.
There was a program on TV yesterday about the week after Princess Diana died. In the current Brexit context the most obvious thing was how the Queen massively missed the mood of the people and stuck to tradition.
I do hope John Bercow it protected by a phalanx of Remain & Anti-No Deal MPs on that last day of this brief Parliament. I for one would go down to parliament offering those inside food, toilet paper – whatever- if need be to keep them in there. It seems to me that MPs need to stay inside.
But I mean – it’s so crude – so this ‘liberal’ idea that our democracy is based on the simple assumption (and held hostage ) by the notion that those in power are ALWAYS intelligent, objective and reasonable people of which we know the swivel-eyed loons of the ERG are not.
So much for any constitution we think we have. How can you have a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ over a ‘constitution’ like this?
It absurd.
They’ve broken it. It’s over. What faces us now is blank page waiting to be written.
Without looking it up, I think the last time a monarch played a part in the process was 1931. The Labour government of Ramsey McDonald were told by the May report that we had to cut government spending to deal with the economic crisis. That would involve cutting ‘the dole’. Several Labour cabinet members refused to agree so McDonald went to the KIng, George Vth, to tender his resignation. The King, no doubt mindful of cousin in exile in the Netherlands (the Kaiser) and a cousin (the Tsar) murdered by the Communists, suggested that these measures would be more acceptable coming from a Labour PM and that he form a ‘National Govt.’ McDonald did so but most of his govt. was Conservative with some of the Liberals (National Liberals). He did so out of a sense of duty I expect, thinking there was no alternative. The National government won an election, getting over 50% of the vote. The only time, I think, when that has happened with a mass electorate. Labour lost many of its seats.
Most historians now think the balanced budget argument was mistaken and needless suffering was imposed. From what I recall Keynes had not yet given a fully explained alternative.
Ironically, Oswald Mosley, had a sort of Keynesian proposal but it had been rejected by the Labour party of which he was a member at the time.
Of course, the King probably had been influenced behind the scenes. Others may be better informed than I am.
There are some interesting parallels .
Richard
I think Pilgrim completely hits the nail on the head regarding this.
Firstly, although there is a set precedent for signing the proroguing document, she could not have been unaware that this is a contentious political decision. In meeting the Privy Council yesterday, should could have asked for more time, consulted with opposition leaders on all sides of the divide, before coming to an informed decision. I am certain that those parties opposing this would have chosen to forgo the party conferences in favour of more time for debating.
However, we are where we are, and I now believe it is time for the Queen to step aside and be replaced by a elected Head of State. In doing so, I would rightly acknowledge that the Queen (and some of her children!!) have given much in the service of the United Kingdom in a dignified and honourable manner.
Before anyone suggests that this is party politically motivated I can assure you that if the situation was reversed (A Remainer Prime Mister seeking to prorogue parliament) I would have no hesitation in feeling the same way.
I would ask you and some of your readers to given considering to a petition I have started this morning regarding having an elected Head of State.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/271386/sponsors/new?token=gSmeVWxYkshhW2q2bd
If this comes to fruition (unlikely I know), I would have no problem with Liz Windsor putting herself forward.
Richard
Have tried to post this twice with no success. Hopefully, will try a third time.
Grateful if you would read the petition and give consideration to singing this.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/271386/sponsors/new?token=gSmeVWxYkshhW2q2bd
I cant see the petition from the link
I have just tried it myself and it works. However it has not yet got 5 signatories for it to go live. Failing that try copying the link and paste it into your browser (I’m not a techie) come back to me if it still isn’t working. The ultimate could be to try turning the computer off and on again – always works in star trek!!!!!!
I have tried
And I cannot see it
What des it say?
Richard
Further to this e-mail, I believe when you click on the link it does not show you the actual petition (bit silly really but there you go). I believe that you enter your details, confirm that you are a UK Resident and confirm your e-mail address. You are then counted as a supporter of my petition. I believe you need to get 5 signatories for it to ‘go live’.
So as to leave any of you and your readers in no doubt this is what my petition says:
My petition:
Replace the Monarchy with an elected Head of State chosen by the people
An Head of State should be politically strictly neutral and could infer contentious decisions to the UK Supreme Court or to the people (via a referendum) or parliament.
There would also be a term limit of 4 years in post. They would be paid a salary, have a small official residence. In carrying out their duties they would represent the county in times of national celebrations, uncertainty and tragedy. In carrying out these duties, the Head of State will be held to account for their all actions, providing a strong incentive to be unifying and inclusive. If they overreach their powers, there should be a clear process for removing them from office.
Please bear in mind that I was word constrained (500 characters) so it may sound a bit strange but I hope the gist of it was OK.
Link again for yourself and readers:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/271386/sponsors/new?token=gSmeVWxYkshhW2q2bd
Hope this clarifies everything.
Regards
Done
Worked for me and I signed it. I wonder if Macron has some guillotines in storage he could lend us 😉
Richard
Thank you for signing. It has now the required signatures and will need to be checked by the petitions committee before going live.
Best Wishes
The Do Not Prorogue petition is here:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157
Now 1.4 million.
@John D
Macron keeps a wary eye on that guillotine…he’s been called Jupiter, Louis XIV, and other things besides…so he won’t let it out of his sight, just in case 😉
Even an elected Head of State can fear a coup d’Etat…but at least he can also be legally removed by dissolutions and elections, and there have been a few since 1789.
In some cultures, Kings and Queens are non hereditary. If the British like the pageantry that goes with crowned heads, as they seem to, they could always opt for that instead? They’d keep them fed and clothed, could change them when they get too greedy or shabby?
@Richard
Thanks for that article, informative and interesting. I remember studying the period leading up to Cromwell but needed a reminder.
I do hope we can resolve this without Roundheads and Cavaliers setting the land on fire, but I really don’t see how the UK can survive much longer as a unit.
It’ll take some time, but long term damage has been done, in and out of it. Reputations come and go, but once trust is gone, it can’t be mended. And trust has gone.
People here are so (rightly) focused on what’s happening to the UK that they’re mostly unaware of how they are perceived outside it, but the other Nations in the EU are watching in disbelief and dismay, as the relatively steady and tolerant mother of all Parliaments is losing it.
All dreadfully sad.
There was a constitutional way for the queen to refuse to sign.
It’s nuclear but if she felt strongly enough she could have done it.
Abdicate. It’s always a way out.
She can’t be asked to sign if she isn’t queen.
So yes if all this goes badly wrong she is accountable.
It’s a pity really. It would have been a glorious end to her reign. Going out in a blaze of glory. In fact her reign will just fizzle out like the previous Elizabeth.