6 ms·

UK Government to Ask Queen to Suspend Parliament

85 points by aries1980 7y ago

brnt 7y ago
After all, what good is parliament, if it doesn't vote your way, mr PM?
- votepaunchy 7y ago
  Boris Johnson doesn’t appear to care if Parliament votes at all! I’m still amazed how a majority can support BoJo as PM given his desire for Brexit and a no-deal, but at the same time oppose Brexit, no-deal, and Remain. If Theresa May had a spine she would have revoked Article 50 before stepping down.
  - arethuza 7y ago
    I see the hand of the Dark Lord Cummings in this move.
  - NikkiA 7y ago
    > how a majority can support BoJo as PM There's no evidence of that, and statistically it's almost impossible (the conservative party, when they win, tends to get elected on 30% of the public's vote or less)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
peter303 7y ago
Trump is drooling that he wished he had this power.
- llarsson 7y ago
  Can't martial law be declared due to an emergency [1] and then pretty much all bets are off? Or actually go to war (fights are being picked all over at the moment), causing such an emergency? [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/preside...
sammorrowdrums 7y ago
The interesting and scary part is that (if you are a fan of him / Brexit at any cost) Johnson is not defying parliament but simply "preparing his bold programme for government" to be delivered in a Queen's Speach a couple of weeks before Brexit date. The dual narrative of politics continues, and both sides of the equation literally experience a different universe it would seem.
- sammorrowdrums 7y ago
  Care to explain the downvote? I was only explaining that a huge number of people feel it's democracy that's being upheld by this action. I personally disagree entirely. I just am amazed that a fragmented simultaneously different truth can exist so openly with people believing the side they agree with. Of course I see the risk to UK democracy and the strategic (and in my view dangerously manipulative) use of the system and of course with the timing it seems impossible to argue seriously that it's just to set out a programme of gov, but that is the line Johnson is selling.
  - vanderZwan 7y ago
    > Care to explain the downvote? There are always one or two pro-Brexit people in threads like this who get defensive at the sight of any opposition to their way of reasoning about this.
    - sammorrowdrums 7y ago
      Ahh. I'm certainly not that. I meant to express my amazement that people can believe completely different things about something. It wasn't an endorsement, and I'm happy to discuss the issues in detail. I've been doing it since I lost the vote...
  - tremon 7y ago
    Your post simply makes no sense to me. You're using assertions without reference ("Johnson is not defying parliament", "to be delivered in a Queen's Speach") and vapid terminology ("dual narrative of politics", "different universe") without explaining any link between them. So I downvoted because I can't make heads or tails of your words.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fortyseven 7y ago
Breaking noose. ️
hotz 7y ago
Good. The people voted to leave the EU, so get on with the job and make it happen.
- henryaj 7y ago
  The people didn't vote to crash out without a deal. In fact, all the Vote Leave literature explicitly said we would negotiate a trade deal before we left.
  - reallydontask 7y ago
    The irony is that under WTO rules, we'd trade with less say on the rules that under pretty much any other arrangement. Not that the whole Brexit thing was ever very rational (in the homus economicus sense) but this is sliding into a farce and tragedy all in one. If I were an optimist, I'd say that this is posturing to force the EU's hand but I suspect that unless a face saving measure is found, this is it.
- Brakenshire 7y ago
  Whether you're for or against leaving the EU is irrelevant. No one should be in favour of bypassing democratic mechanisms to get their way. I support a lot of policies, but I don't support any of them being enacted by undemocratic or unconstitutional means. The people elect Parliament, and Parliament decides whether Boris Johnson is Prime Minister. He has no authority beyond what Parliament gives him, that is how our democracy works.
- johneth 7y ago
  > The people voted to leave the EU Erm, no. 51% of 72% voted to leave. The rest either voted remain or didn't vote. Most of those who voted to leave almost certainly didn't vote for no deal. So stop spreading this empty "just get on with it" rhetoric. It's infuriating.
- gpderetta 7y ago
  The people also voted for a parliament.
missafir 7y ago
:)))))))))
vanderZwan 7y ago
Do we know the queen's stance on Brexit? It would be hilariously ironic if her response turns out be something along the lines of "well I'm supposed to stay out of politics, but you kind of forced my hand in telling the world in how horribly stupid I think this entire thing is"
- ComputerGuru 7y ago
  She’s been (rightly) tight-lipped and has steadfastly refused to comment, but the BBC reported a while back that some “unnamed sources” close to her believe she is silently partial to Leave. This older NY Times story talks about her unionist view, the controversy in The Sun’s claim that she is pro-Brexit, and surprisingly also the prorogue: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/world/europe/queen-elizabeth-brexit-britain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/world/europe/queen-elizab...
  - vanderZwan 7y ago
    Well, that sounds like it could lead to interesting scenarios then.
  - Brakenshire 7y ago
    That's irrelevant to this case, what matters here is whether she considers her duty to simply enact what she is told by the PM, or to interpret whether the action is constitutional.
- KaiserPro 7y ago
  The Queen might have a stance on brexit, but it will never be quoted. She will do what the government advises. She's got burnt once before picking sides, I doubt she'll make that mistake again.
mrtksn 7y ago
Putting the substance of the politics aside, I wonder why all this feels coordinated. I mean Trump, Brexit, Putin, Erdoğan, The guy in Brazil, in Hungary - all seem to act like a part of a bigger organization. I don’t really believe that there’s a grand conspiracy but I am fascinated how unrelated organizations act in resonance. It’s not even limited to big politics, suddenly right wing bigotry is sexy. “Lone wolfs” attack women, minorities or pretty much any outliers, movements emerge as ways to combat vegans, girls that don’t behave in the desired ways etc.
- pjc50 7y ago
  There's some evidence that the same people keep turning up in the same places. Plus the same internet memes, although who knows if they're a leading or following indicator.
- pygy_ 7y ago
  The far right has been coordinating for a while. Besides its ties with Trump, Russia has also been financing extreme right parties in Europe (and probably elsewhere), and pushing divisive propaganda through its press divisions (RT, ...).
- Brakenshire 7y ago
  It's social media. It allows anyone to bypass expert judgement of democratic norms and broadcast to create a tribal group around themselves.
- Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago
  Trump, the Brexit band and Bolsonaro (you could add Salvini to the list, as well as other leaders of the populist right that have not achieved power but have been close, such as Le Pen) have the same origin: austerity and neoliberalism have pissed people off in most of the West, enriching the rich while the middle classes wane or stagnate. The political establishment have made a good job of adoctrinating against the left (I mean the real one, not the likes of Hillary Clinton) so people have seeked refuge in the populist far right. If different countries share a host of economic and political factors, it's not surprising that the results are also similar. Putin and Erdoğan are different beasts, they have been around for much longer. They are just good at consolidating their power. I don't know much about the Hungarian situation.
L0stRegulator 7y ago
This is where a written constitution is super important. The UK (or England & Wales to be specific) doesn't have one, and relies on 'constitutional conventions' (which needless to say shift in interpretation by whoever is in government). The lack of a written constitution has allowed certain things like the UK equivalent of the 5th Amendment (invoking the right of silence when questioned in a criminal proceeding does not invoke an appearance of guilt that can be told to the jury) disappear under Tony Blair.
- twic 7y ago
  No. If you took the current UK constitution and wrote it all down on one piece of paper, we would be in exactly the same situation. The important thing about a constitution is that it is well-designed, not that it is written down.
  - L0stRegulator 7y ago
    The issue is that if it was written down it would be well defined. There would be legal cases for clarification rather than loosely defined precedents. It's too fluffy and malleable, which can work well in good times, and very badly under oppressive regimes.
pjc50 7y ago
There's conflicting reports on this, because this is roughly the time that in "normal" operation that it would be suspended for conference season and then re-opened via the Queen's Speech. The problem is these are not normal times, and the Parliamentary majority is trying to regain control of the legislative timetable but without bringing down the government.
- ComputerGuru 7y ago
  The article says the last times this was done, parliament was suspended for 5 and 13 days respectively while Mr Johnson is asking for 23 days this time. That’s telling.
  - twic 7y ago
    Also, he's asking for prorogation, which is done by royal prerogative, rather than the usual recess, which is done by a vote in parliament.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Yes, The Parliament Act left the Queen with one last vestige of power, prorogation. Johnson PM is apparently going to tell HM the Queen that she must give up the ages old constitutional arrangement of ceding power to parliament and instead she must cede power to him. That's treason both against democracy and against the crown, as I see it. So, will she intervene and hand the power promised to parliament (to prevent civil war and the downfall of the monarchy) over to Johnson such that he is no longer Her Majesty's Prime Minister but instead becomes the UK's de facto dictator; claiming the power of sovereignty for himself. Or, will she maintain the status quo established when Cromwell became, ahem, disestablished, and refuse to remove the sovereignty of parliament (and so, ironically, maintain her own sovereignty) ...
sorokod 7y ago
Closer to crashing out. This will obviously weaken the EU which will be viewed as a positive outcome by other major players: Russia, China and (bizzarley) US.
- arethuza 7y ago
  Not sure what's bizarre about it - the US sees the EU as a competitor economically and stands to gain even more power over the UK as a result of Brexit.
  - sorokod 7y ago
    That is true, but there used to be strategic considerations the allowed a balance to be maintained.
  - vanderZwan 7y ago
    This is probably true for Russia and China as well, but especially for the US with its internal political tensions I wonder if we aren't doing reality a disservice by treating it as one entity with a made-up mind.
    - sorokod 7y ago
      The internal argument is itrelevant as the state persues strategic policies and goals regardless.
      - vanderZwan 7y ago
        Yes, but what those policies and goals are change depending on who is in charge
        sorokod 7y ago
        Absolutely - and nothing else matters.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
treerock 7y ago
So the plan is for Parliament to be suspended between 10th September and 14th October. But they were already due a recess between 13th September and 8th October for their yearly jolly at the seaside[1]. Having just returned from their summer recess between 20th July and 5th September. [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_conference_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_conference_season
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  There is a very important difference. The normal conference season is just a break, a holiday. Any debates, work or legislation continues where they left off after they get back. If something important happens, they can and have come back early or might vote not to break. The runes were showing that a long break would have been trimmed by parliament. Proroguing parliament ends the parliamentary session. Any work in progress, debates on bills and what not are cancelled as void. A new session of parliament starts from day one on everything, with a Queen's speech, State Opening and what not. That's why toward the end of the parliamentary year there is often a rush to get matters concluded and bills enacted before prorogation. Coming back early is much more difficult. This move effectively turns the whole parliament into a one issue organisation and disables debate. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/prorogation/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/prorogation/
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  "Yes, we know war just broke out, but normally the army have a holiday that week; the enemy suggested they have a fortnight off this time, so why not!" Makes perfect sense? /s
usr1106 7y ago
Quoting HN submission guidelines: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
- lol768 7y ago
  >evidence of some interesting new phenomenon I can't personally have imagined this taking place a decade ago. I think it's interesting for that reason. Certainly politics in the UK and beyond feel starkly different nowadays.
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  Seems like the submission guidelines might need updating in light of what the HN community demonstrates to be the range of topics it de facto believes are worthy of posting & discussion, no?
  - smcl 7y ago
    It seems to fit under "interesting new phenomenon" but annoyingly enough people hit "flag" when they could have hit "hide" so it disappears. Now we get to watch the same story get repeatedly resubmitted (bbc.com, guardian.co.uk, times.co.uk etc), commented-on and upvoted ... then flagged off by the minority. But hey, at least we get to see the latest DerpCorp S-1 filing!
- aries1980 7y ago
  According to Google, there are about 10600 entries on "government shutdown" on HN: https://www.google.com/search?q=government+shutdown+site:news.ycombinator.com https://www.google.com/search?q=government+shutdown+site:new... When I submitted this article, I thought about the similarity and the direct effect of the tech companies in the UK and Europe.
  - twic 7y ago
    It's worth noting the difference. The UK parliament passes annual budgets well in advance of the year in which they authorize spending: the autumn budget passed in 2018 authorizes spending for the 2019/20 fiscal year. A prorogation, recession, dissolution, or stringing-up of parliament in the UK won't stop the government spending that money. Parliament will need to be back in action before the 5th of April 2020, though. The US congress seems to leave budgets much later (or perhaps, ends up taking longer over them because of the brinksmanship), and uses continuing resolutions to extend the deadline. As i understand it, the US fiscal year starts on the 1st of October; congress didn't pass a budget for 2018/9 until the 15th of February 2019, so the funding from 2017/8 was extended by a couple of continuing resolutions (one in September 2018, extending it to the 7th of December, and one in early December 2018, extending it to the 21st of December), still leaving a shutdown before a budget was finally passed. Before the passage of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act in 2011, and the general fading of constitutional certainty which has occurred in the last several years, the UK mechanism for maintaining funding was that if the government failed to get a budget through parliament, they would resign and dissolve parliament. There would then be an election, and the new government and new parliament would have a fresh shot at getting a budget through. Now, though, the FTPA does not allow a government to unilaterally dissolve parliament, many people think a government would not have to resign after failing to pass a budget, and elections often don't produce a majority anyway!
flexie 7y ago
If this had happened in a second or third world country, we would have called it a coup. A government suspending parliament is suspending the checks and balances. It is usurping all powers. As all other usurpers, Johnson cites the will of the people. Yes, for now it is just temporary. In 49, Caesar also started with a temporary dictatorship: 11 days. Then in 48 one year. Then in 47 10 years. Then in 44 for life. then he was killed but the Roman republic and its sort of democracy died with him. Johnson is blocking elected members of parliament from asserting their influence on the most important decisions since WWII. The mother of all parliaments...
- arethuza 7y ago
  The "coup" term is actually being used by the opposition - though no sign of tanks outside Bute House yet - probably because we don't have very many tanks! ;-)
- em3rgent0rdr 7y ago
  Caesar didn't take power in a coup. He asked senate for power and senate granted it.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    He brought his army to town, then "asked" the senate for power. That looks a lot like a coup.
chicob 7y ago
So now the only way out of a clearly anti-democratic move to silence a semi-democratic parliament, put in place by a Prime-Minister that was not directly elected, is by having a non-elected head of state putting a stop to it. Good heavens.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Within the last 100 years, there have been at least one instances of the monarch being the last refuge of democracy (in Spain, when Juan Carlos opposed a military coup). The queen may in fact have to be the grownup in the room to get the UK out of this in some fashion. Parliament (and May, and Johnson) don't seem to be able to do it.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Not really. The Queen intervenes if she does prorogue as that is exercise of her reserved powers. AIUI since Cromwell's reign ended the monarchy have agreed to give _parliament_ sovereignty. If the monarch does not intervene, then parliament can stop Johnson from becoming de facto dictator. If the monarch ends the established constitution, steps in and uses her executive power to order prorogation of parliament, then Johnson can have his way. The Tories appear to have got in early, and lied, pretending that Johnson PM's right is to take away parliamentary sovereignty whilst the opposite is the case.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Well parliamentary sovereignty while the monarch wills it, symbolised by the parliamentary mace, without which proceedings can't continue. Proroguing to get his way is seizing power, whichever way they try to paint it. Victoria was the last monarch to actually do something unilateral with the sovereign powers, at some point in the late 1800's. She appointed Gladstone's successor without consulting Gladstone. IIRC that was only because Gladstone hadn't bothered with a successor as he was supposed to and it had dragged on for ages. Charles II, the restored monarch, dissolved parliament in the hopes of a better one a time or three. He had ongoing issues with parliament, almost all over the question of Catholic succession. Lizzie probably has good grounds to intervene given how crassly and illegally Johnson appears to be acting, yet the tabloid outrage if she did could easily cost her the throne. It's a very long time since I read much on the UK constitution, so I couldn't guess what devils are hiding in the details.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I had always assumed that the sane position was Remain. But I was talking to a friend from the UK, and he said that the status quo was not an option. The EU was going to move (already starting to move, in fact) toward tighter integration, so the only options were "Leave" or "even more EU". Faced with that choice, there were reasonable people who wanted out.
velox_io 7y ago
On one hand, I think that Boris is flexing he power to prove to [the rest of] Europe that he is willing to take a hard Brexit if the EU is unwilling to negotiate (you can't negotiate unless you're willing to walk away). On the other hand... This is a complete disaster. If parliament can't function, what hope does the rest of the country have? I think the exchange rate is the best metric on how well Brexit is going. The sad irony is that Brexit was meant to give the UK sovereignty (rule Britania and all that...), but crashing the economy has made everything cheaper for foreign investors. The UK is no longer united metaphorically and literally. Brexit has been a death march from the get-go.

85 points by aries1980 7y ago

brnt 7y ago

After all, what good is parliament, if it doesn't vote your way, mr PM?

votepaunchy 7y ago
Boris Johnson doesn’t appear to care if Parliament votes at all! I’m still amazed how a majority can support BoJo as PM given his desire for Brexit and a no-deal, but at the same time oppose Brexit, no-deal, and Remain. If Theresa May had a spine she would have revoked Article 50 before stepping down.
- arethuza 7y ago
  I see the hand of the Dark Lord Cummings in this move.
- NikkiA 7y ago
  > how a majority can support BoJo as PM There's no evidence of that, and statistically it's almost impossible (the conservative party, when they win, tends to get elected on 30% of the public's vote or less)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

peter303 7y ago

Trump is drooling that he wished he had this power.

llarsson 7y ago
Can't martial law be declared due to an emergency [1] and then pretty much all bets are off? Or actually go to war (fights are being picked all over at the moment), causing such an emergency? [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/preside...

sammorrowdrums 7y ago

The interesting and scary part is that (if you are a fan of him / Brexit at any cost) Johnson is not defying parliament but simply "preparing his bold programme for government" to be delivered in a Queen's Speach a couple of weeks before Brexit date. The dual narrative of politics continues, and both sides of the equation literally experience a different universe it would seem.

sammorrowdrums 7y ago
Care to explain the downvote? I was only explaining that a huge number of people feel it's democracy that's being upheld by this action. I personally disagree entirely. I just am amazed that a fragmented simultaneously different truth can exist so openly with people believing the side they agree with. Of course I see the risk to UK democracy and the strategic (and in my view dangerously manipulative) use of the system and of course with the timing it seems impossible to argue seriously that it's just to set out a programme of gov, but that is the line Johnson is selling.
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  > Care to explain the downvote? There are always one or two pro-Brexit people in threads like this who get defensive at the sight of any opposition to their way of reasoning about this.
  - sammorrowdrums 7y ago
    Ahh. I'm certainly not that. I meant to express my amazement that people can believe completely different things about something. It wasn't an endorsement, and I'm happy to discuss the issues in detail. I've been doing it since I lost the vote...
- tremon 7y ago
  Your post simply makes no sense to me. You're using assertions without reference ("Johnson is not defying parliament", "to be delivered in a Queen's Speach") and vapid terminology ("dual narrative of politics", "different universe") without explaining any link between them. So I downvoted because I can't make heads or tails of your words.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

fortyseven 7y ago

Breaking noose. ️

hotz 7y ago

Good. The people voted to leave the EU, so get on with the job and make it happen.

henryaj 7y ago
The people didn't vote to crash out without a deal. In fact, all the Vote Leave literature explicitly said we would negotiate a trade deal before we left.
- reallydontask 7y ago
  The irony is that under WTO rules, we'd trade with less say on the rules that under pretty much any other arrangement. Not that the whole Brexit thing was ever very rational (in the homus economicus sense) but this is sliding into a farce and tragedy all in one. If I were an optimist, I'd say that this is posturing to force the EU's hand but I suspect that unless a face saving measure is found, this is it.
Brakenshire 7y ago
Whether you're for or against leaving the EU is irrelevant. No one should be in favour of bypassing democratic mechanisms to get their way. I support a lot of policies, but I don't support any of them being enacted by undemocratic or unconstitutional means. The people elect Parliament, and Parliament decides whether Boris Johnson is Prime Minister. He has no authority beyond what Parliament gives him, that is how our democracy works.
johneth 7y ago
> The people voted to leave the EU Erm, no. 51% of 72% voted to leave. The rest either voted remain or didn't vote. Most of those who voted to leave almost certainly didn't vote for no deal. So stop spreading this empty "just get on with it" rhetoric. It's infuriating.
gpderetta 7y ago
The people also voted for a parliament.

missafir 7y ago

:)))))))))

vanderZwan 7y ago

Do we know the queen's stance on Brexit? It would be hilariously ironic if her response turns out be something along the lines of "well I'm supposed to stay out of politics, but you kind of forced my hand in telling the world in how horribly stupid I think this entire thing is"

ComputerGuru 7y ago
She’s been (rightly) tight-lipped and has steadfastly refused to comment, but the BBC reported a while back that some “unnamed sources” close to her believe she is silently partial to Leave. This older NY Times story talks about her unionist view, the controversy in The Sun’s claim that she is pro-Brexit, and surprisingly also the prorogue: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/world/europe/queen-elizabeth-brexit-britain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/world/europe/queen-elizab...
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  Well, that sounds like it could lead to interesting scenarios then.
- Brakenshire 7y ago
  That's irrelevant to this case, what matters here is whether she considers her duty to simply enact what she is told by the PM, or to interpret whether the action is constitutional.
KaiserPro 7y ago
The Queen might have a stance on brexit, but it will never be quoted. She will do what the government advises. She's got burnt once before picking sides, I doubt she'll make that mistake again.

mrtksn 7y ago

Putting the substance of the politics aside, I wonder why all this feels coordinated. I mean Trump, Brexit, Putin, Erdoğan, The guy in Brazil, in Hungary - all seem to act like a part of a bigger organization. I don’t really believe that there’s a grand conspiracy but I am fascinated how unrelated organizations act in resonance. It’s not even limited to big politics, suddenly right wing bigotry is sexy. “Lone wolfs” attack women, minorities or pretty much any outliers, movements emerge as ways to combat vegans, girls that don’t behave in the desired ways etc.

pjc50 7y ago
There's some evidence that the same people keep turning up in the same places. Plus the same internet memes, although who knows if they're a leading or following indicator.
pygy_ 7y ago
The far right has been coordinating for a while. Besides its ties with Trump, Russia has also been financing extreme right parties in Europe (and probably elsewhere), and pushing divisive propaganda through its press divisions (RT, ...).
Brakenshire 7y ago
It's social media. It allows anyone to bypass expert judgement of democratic norms and broadcast to create a tribal group around themselves.
Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago
Trump, the Brexit band and Bolsonaro (you could add Salvini to the list, as well as other leaders of the populist right that have not achieved power but have been close, such as Le Pen) have the same origin: austerity and neoliberalism have pissed people off in most of the West, enriching the rich while the middle classes wane or stagnate. The political establishment have made a good job of adoctrinating against the left (I mean the real one, not the likes of Hillary Clinton) so people have seeked refuge in the populist far right. If different countries share a host of economic and political factors, it's not surprising that the results are also similar. Putin and Erdoğan are different beasts, they have been around for much longer. They are just good at consolidating their power. I don't know much about the Hungarian situation.

L0stRegulator 7y ago

This is where a written constitution is super important. The UK (or England & Wales to be specific) doesn't have one, and relies on 'constitutional conventions' (which needless to say shift in interpretation by whoever is in government). The lack of a written constitution has allowed certain things like the UK equivalent of the 5th Amendment (invoking the right of silence when questioned in a criminal proceeding does not invoke an appearance of guilt that can be told to the jury) disappear under Tony Blair.

twic 7y ago
No. If you took the current UK constitution and wrote it all down on one piece of paper, we would be in exactly the same situation. The important thing about a constitution is that it is well-designed, not that it is written down.
- L0stRegulator 7y ago
  The issue is that if it was written down it would be well defined. There would be legal cases for clarification rather than loosely defined precedents. It's too fluffy and malleable, which can work well in good times, and very badly under oppressive regimes.

pjc50 7y ago

There's conflicting reports on this, because this is roughly the time that in "normal" operation that it would be suspended for conference season and then re-opened via the Queen's Speech. The problem is these are not normal times, and the Parliamentary majority is trying to regain control of the legislative timetable but without bringing down the government.

ComputerGuru 7y ago
The article says the last times this was done, parliament was suspended for 5 and 13 days respectively while Mr Johnson is asking for 23 days this time. That’s telling.
- twic 7y ago
  Also, he's asking for prorogation, which is done by royal prerogative, rather than the usual recess, which is done by a vote in parliament.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Yes, The Parliament Act left the Queen with one last vestige of power, prorogation. Johnson PM is apparently going to tell HM the Queen that she must give up the ages old constitutional arrangement of ceding power to parliament and instead she must cede power to him. That's treason both against democracy and against the crown, as I see it. So, will she intervene and hand the power promised to parliament (to prevent civil war and the downfall of the monarchy) over to Johnson such that he is no longer Her Majesty's Prime Minister but instead becomes the UK's de facto dictator; claiming the power of sovereignty for himself. Or, will she maintain the status quo established when Cromwell became, ahem, disestablished, and refuse to remove the sovereignty of parliament (and so, ironically, maintain her own sovereignty) ...

sorokod 7y ago

Closer to crashing out. This will obviously weaken the EU which will be viewed as a positive outcome by other major players: Russia, China and (bizzarley) US.

arethuza 7y ago
Not sure what's bizarre about it - the US sees the EU as a competitor economically and stands to gain even more power over the UK as a result of Brexit.
- sorokod 7y ago
  That is true, but there used to be strategic considerations the allowed a balance to be maintained.
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  This is probably true for Russia and China as well, but especially for the US with its internal political tensions I wonder if we aren't doing reality a disservice by treating it as one entity with a made-up mind.
  - sorokod 7y ago
    The internal argument is itrelevant as the state persues strategic policies and goals regardless.
    - vanderZwan 7y ago
      Yes, but what those policies and goals are change depending on who is in charge
      - sorokod 7y ago
        Absolutely - and nothing else matters.
mytailorisrich 7y ago

treerock 7y ago

So the plan is for Parliament to be suspended between 10th September and 14th October. But they were already due a recess between 13th September and 8th October for their yearly jolly at the seaside[1]. Having just returned from their summer recess between 20th July and 5th September. [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_conference_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_conference_season

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
There is a very important difference. The normal conference season is just a break, a holiday. Any debates, work or legislation continues where they left off after they get back. If something important happens, they can and have come back early or might vote not to break. The runes were showing that a long break would have been trimmed by parliament. Proroguing parliament ends the parliamentary session. Any work in progress, debates on bills and what not are cancelled as void. A new session of parliament starts from day one on everything, with a Queen's speech, State Opening and what not. That's why toward the end of the parliamentary year there is often a rush to get matters concluded and bills enacted before prorogation. Coming back early is much more difficult. This move effectively turns the whole parliament into a one issue organisation and disables debate. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/prorogation/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/prorogation/
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
"Yes, we know war just broke out, but normally the army have a holiday that week; the enemy suggested they have a fortnight off this time, so why not!" Makes perfect sense? /s

usr1106 7y ago

Quoting HN submission guidelines: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

lol768 7y ago
>evidence of some interesting new phenomenon I can't personally have imagined this taking place a decade ago. I think it's interesting for that reason. Certainly politics in the UK and beyond feel starkly different nowadays.
mlthoughts2018 7y ago
Seems like the submission guidelines might need updating in light of what the HN community demonstrates to be the range of topics it de facto believes are worthy of posting & discussion, no?
- smcl 7y ago
  It seems to fit under "interesting new phenomenon" but annoyingly enough people hit "flag" when they could have hit "hide" so it disappears. Now we get to watch the same story get repeatedly resubmitted (bbc.com, guardian.co.uk, times.co.uk etc), commented-on and upvoted ... then flagged off by the minority. But hey, at least we get to see the latest DerpCorp S-1 filing!
aries1980 7y ago
According to Google, there are about 10600 entries on "government shutdown" on HN: https://www.google.com/search?q=government+shutdown+site:news.ycombinator.com https://www.google.com/search?q=government+shutdown+site:new... When I submitted this article, I thought about the similarity and the direct effect of the tech companies in the UK and Europe.
- twic 7y ago
  It's worth noting the difference. The UK parliament passes annual budgets well in advance of the year in which they authorize spending: the autumn budget passed in 2018 authorizes spending for the 2019/20 fiscal year. A prorogation, recession, dissolution, or stringing-up of parliament in the UK won't stop the government spending that money. Parliament will need to be back in action before the 5th of April 2020, though. The US congress seems to leave budgets much later (or perhaps, ends up taking longer over them because of the brinksmanship), and uses continuing resolutions to extend the deadline. As i understand it, the US fiscal year starts on the 1st of October; congress didn't pass a budget for 2018/9 until the 15th of February 2019, so the funding from 2017/8 was extended by a couple of continuing resolutions (one in September 2018, extending it to the 7th of December, and one in early December 2018, extending it to the 21st of December), still leaving a shutdown before a budget was finally passed. Before the passage of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act in 2011, and the general fading of constitutional certainty which has occurred in the last several years, the UK mechanism for maintaining funding was that if the government failed to get a budget through parliament, they would resign and dissolve parliament. There would then be an election, and the new government and new parliament would have a fresh shot at getting a budget through. Now, though, the FTPA does not allow a government to unilaterally dissolve parliament, many people think a government would not have to resign after failing to pass a budget, and elections often don't produce a majority anyway!

flexie 7y ago

If this had happened in a second or third world country, we would have called it a coup. A government suspending parliament is suspending the checks and balances. It is usurping all powers. As all other usurpers, Johnson cites the will of the people. Yes, for now it is just temporary. In 49, Caesar also started with a temporary dictatorship: 11 days. Then in 48 one year. Then in 47 10 years. Then in 44 for life. then he was killed but the Roman republic and its sort of democracy died with him. Johnson is blocking elected members of parliament from asserting their influence on the most important decisions since WWII. The mother of all parliaments...

arethuza 7y ago
The "coup" term is actually being used by the opposition - though no sign of tanks outside Bute House yet - probably because we don't have very many tanks! ;-)
em3rgent0rdr 7y ago
Caesar didn't take power in a coup. He asked senate for power and senate granted it.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  He brought his army to town, then "asked" the senate for power. That looks a lot like a coup.

chicob 7y ago

So now the only way out of a clearly anti-democratic move to silence a semi-democratic parliament, put in place by a Prime-Minister that was not directly elected, is by having a non-elected head of state putting a stop to it. Good heavens.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Within the last 100 years, there have been at least one instances of the monarch being the last refuge of democracy (in Spain, when Juan Carlos opposed a military coup). The queen may in fact have to be the grownup in the room to get the UK out of this in some fashion. Parliament (and May, and Johnson) don't seem to be able to do it.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Not really. The Queen intervenes if she does prorogue as that is exercise of her reserved powers. AIUI since Cromwell's reign ended the monarchy have agreed to give _parliament_ sovereignty. If the monarch does not intervene, then parliament can stop Johnson from becoming de facto dictator. If the monarch ends the established constitution, steps in and uses her executive power to order prorogation of parliament, then Johnson can have his way. The Tories appear to have got in early, and lied, pretending that Johnson PM's right is to take away parliamentary sovereignty whilst the opposite is the case.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Well parliamentary sovereignty while the monarch wills it, symbolised by the parliamentary mace, without which proceedings can't continue. Proroguing to get his way is seizing power, whichever way they try to paint it. Victoria was the last monarch to actually do something unilateral with the sovereign powers, at some point in the late 1800's. She appointed Gladstone's successor without consulting Gladstone. IIRC that was only because Gladstone hadn't bothered with a successor as he was supposed to and it had dragged on for ages. Charles II, the restored monarch, dissolved parliament in the hopes of a better one a time or three. He had ongoing issues with parliament, almost all over the question of Catholic succession. Lizzie probably has good grounds to intervene given how crassly and illegally Johnson appears to be acting, yet the tabloid outrage if she did could easily cost her the throne. It's a very long time since I read much on the UK constitution, so I couldn't guess what devils are hiding in the details.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

I had always assumed that the sane position was Remain. But I was talking to a friend from the UK, and he said that the status quo was not an option. The EU was going to move (already starting to move, in fact) toward tighter integration, so the only options were "Leave" or "even more EU". Faced with that choice, there were reasonable people who wanted out.

velox_io 7y ago

On one hand, I think that Boris is flexing he power to prove to [the rest of] Europe that he is willing to take a hard Brexit if the EU is unwilling to negotiate (you can't negotiate unless you're willing to walk away). On the other hand... This is a complete disaster. If parliament can't function, what hope does the rest of the country have? I think the exchange rate is the best metric on how well Brexit is going. The sad irony is that Brexit was meant to give the UK sovereignty (rule Britania and all that...), but crashing the economy has made everything cheaper for foreign investors. The UK is no longer united metaphorically and literally. Brexit has been a death march from the get-go.