4 ms·

"It's something that would have been unimaginable to happen in the UK a few years ago" You say that but we had it happen in 1997 to prevent parliamentary discu

"It's something that would have been unimaginable to happen in the UK a few years ago" You say that but we had it happen in 1997 to prevent parliamentary discussion of the cash for questions scandal that ultimately toppled the Major Conservative government. I believe that the Blair government considered it in the run up to the Iraq war too but didn't.

makomk 7y ago
Yeah, though somehow the British press managed to omit that little fact from their regurgitations of John Major's claims about how dangerous and remarkable this action was. His prorogation seems much more clear-cut an example of frustrating Parliamentary scrutiny too; he completely blocked Parliament from sitting between the time he announced it and the election he was hoping to protect, unlike this case where Boris left windows for them to act both before and after the prorogation, and he didn't even have the justification that Boris did of doing it to end an over-long session and hold a Queen's Speech.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  Not a few of Major's cabinet ended up in jail, for various reasons. In fact there's a better precedent - Attlee's prorogation in 1948. The difference is that both were done by a PM with a working majority, so it could be argued they were done with the consent of Parliament. Johnson nuked his own majority from orbit, so there's absolutely no argument that he's acting with the confidence and approval of Parliament. Which is part of the problem. Parliament will remove him with a No Confidence vote soon. But first it wants to make sure that he doesn't make any other attempt to game electoral or Parliamentary procedure to force through the mad Brexit agenda that his hedge-fund owning backers want to profit from.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    The prorogation in 1948 was about creating a pro-forma session of Parliament just for the purpose of passing a law an extra time, so as to pass it over the objections of the Lords. It didn't actually prevent Parliament from having its say, which is the issue today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Clement_Atlee's_Lords_reform_(1948) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_the_United_King... (BoJo's government still has the confidence of Parliament until it doesn't- that's not what the court ruled on)
NikolaNovak 7y ago
It was also a bit of an issue for Conservative party in Canada - though nowhere near at the scale & criticality of UK.
ineedasername 7y ago
Not only was that 1997 incident during a time and issue that was not nearly as critical to the existence of the country, it was not at all comparable because it did not fundamentally prevent parliament from taking meaningful action on the issue: when parliament reconvened it could take up the issue again at it's leisure. In this case, prorogueing parliament had the effect of preventing nearly any meaningful action from taking place before it was too late. It's the difference between delaying action and denying it out right. (Yes there would have been a couple of days, not nearly enough for meaningful review or careful legislative action.) Also length is a strong distinguishing factor. A few days or even a week or two are different enough in this situation to elevate a difference of degree to a difference in kind. Finally, it happened with a PM that had a majority. Arguably the PM is not overuling the purpose of parliament when parliament itself agrees with the action. That is not the case here, there is no majority for the PM, and to all available evidence there is a majority that oppose this move by Johnson.
- roenxi 7y ago
  > In this case, prorogueing parliament had the effect of preventing nearly any meaningful action from taking place before it was too late. Did nobody tell parliament that Brexit was an issue? They've had 3 years to act. Why 2 more weeks is so critical isn't actually all that obvious in the big picture. If a 5-week break in parliament is the difference between outcomes in a 3 year process; it is too close to call and it is democratic enough whatever happens. The details are important but ultimately just politics. On truly divisive 50-50 issues, either option is basically acceptable in a democratic country. Democracies are to avoid the 60-40 splits where countries barrel in to truly foolish ideas that nobody supports. Brexit or No Brexit by means fair and foul aren't going to be death blows; the public has been polled and the politicians have been given time to talk. Neither really expressed a clear direction. It falls to the executive to execute something. Anyhow; courts made a good call. More talking makes for a happy parliament.
  - ergothus 7y ago
    > They've had 3 years to act. Why 2 more weeks is so critical isn't actually all that obvious in the big picture. When you dont have agreement on what to do and a deadline is looming, it seems obvious that, however much it should NOT have been needed, it is in fact critical. You arent chopping 5 weeks off of a 3 year period, you're chopping 5 weeks off of an 8 week period.

makomk 7y ago

Yeah, though somehow the British press managed to omit that little fact from their regurgitations of John Major's claims about how dangerous and remarkable this action was. His prorogation seems much more clear-cut an example of frustrating Parliamentary scrutiny too; he completely blocked Parliament from sitting between the time he announced it and the election he was hoping to protect, unlike this case where Boris left windows for them to act both before and after the prorogation, and he didn't even have the justification that Boris did of doing it to end an over-long session and hold a Queen's Speech.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
Not a few of Major's cabinet ended up in jail, for various reasons. In fact there's a better precedent - Attlee's prorogation in 1948. The difference is that both were done by a PM with a working majority, so it could be argued they were done with the consent of Parliament. Johnson nuked his own majority from orbit, so there's absolutely no argument that he's acting with the confidence and approval of Parliament. Which is part of the problem. Parliament will remove him with a No Confidence vote soon. But first it wants to make sure that he doesn't make any other attempt to game electoral or Parliamentary procedure to force through the mad Brexit agenda that his hedge-fund owning backers want to profit from.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  The prorogation in 1948 was about creating a pro-forma session of Parliament just for the purpose of passing a law an extra time, so as to pass it over the objections of the Lords. It didn't actually prevent Parliament from having its say, which is the issue today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Clement_Atlee's_Lords_reform_(1948) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_the_United_King... (BoJo's government still has the confidence of Parliament until it doesn't- that's not what the court ruled on)

NikolaNovak 7y ago

It was also a bit of an issue for Conservative party in Canada - though nowhere near at the scale & criticality of UK.

ineedasername 7y ago

Not only was that 1997 incident during a time and issue that was not nearly as critical to the existence of the country, it was not at all comparable because it did not fundamentally prevent parliament from taking meaningful action on the issue: when parliament reconvened it could take up the issue again at it's leisure. In this case, prorogueing parliament had the effect of preventing nearly any meaningful action from taking place before it was too late. It's the difference between delaying action and denying it out right. (Yes there would have been a couple of days, not nearly enough for meaningful review or careful legislative action.) Also length is a strong distinguishing factor. A few days or even a week or two are different enough in this situation to elevate a difference of degree to a difference in kind. Finally, it happened with a PM that had a majority. Arguably the PM is not overuling the purpose of parliament when parliament itself agrees with the action. That is not the case here, there is no majority for the PM, and to all available evidence there is a majority that oppose this move by Johnson.

roenxi 7y ago
> In this case, prorogueing parliament had the effect of preventing nearly any meaningful action from taking place before it was too late. Did nobody tell parliament that Brexit was an issue? They've had 3 years to act. Why 2 more weeks is so critical isn't actually all that obvious in the big picture. If a 5-week break in parliament is the difference between outcomes in a 3 year process; it is too close to call and it is democratic enough whatever happens. The details are important but ultimately just politics. On truly divisive 50-50 issues, either option is basically acceptable in a democratic country. Democracies are to avoid the 60-40 splits where countries barrel in to truly foolish ideas that nobody supports. Brexit or No Brexit by means fair and foul aren't going to be death blows; the public has been polled and the politicians have been given time to talk. Neither really expressed a clear direction. It falls to the executive to execute something. Anyhow; courts made a good call. More talking makes for a happy parliament.
- ergothus 7y ago
  > They've had 3 years to act. Why 2 more weeks is so critical isn't actually all that obvious in the big picture. When you dont have agreement on what to do and a deadline is looming, it seems obvious that, however much it should NOT have been needed, it is in fact critical. You arent chopping 5 weeks off of a 3 year period, you're chopping 5 weeks off of an 8 week period.