magnet
5738
Not really. It demonstrates separation of the head of government from the head of state.
As head of state, the Queen is kind of an ambassador for the rest of the world. Not ambassador in the sense of cutting deals, but ambassador in the sense of getting the rest of the world to like the UK. That’s not an insignificant job. But unlike the US head of state, she has no other purpose.
Expecting the Queen to stop Johnson is like expecting the US military to stop Trump.
Yet it is the head of state status that is the sham. We say that Boris asked the Queen for something, but if she cannot refuse that thing, if she can never refuse it, then it isn’t a request and the whole business of ‘asking’ is farce. That truth ought to be clear, however you personally feel about the importance of the farce.
magnet
5740
Proroguing Parliament is performed by the head of government. When the PM asks the Queen for “permission” to do something like that, she is effectively being asked if she wants to take over the job of head of government. Technically she can do that at any time, thus ending democracy in the UK. Wisely, she always declines the offer.
In contrast, in her duties as head of state (ie speaking to foreign leaders, promoting charities, etc) the Queen is free to do as she pleases.
Why would they object to being an accessory to pernicious nonsense when the monarchy have been agents of pernicious nonsense for hundreds of years?
This question answers itself!
Not sure what the rules are in the UK, but it’s important to keep in mind that they are not a less powerful President - they’re basically hereditary ambassadors for life, with a ceremonial role in the democratic process. The monarchs are not allowed to let their private political opinions influence their formal duties, though. She may not like what he’s doing, but as long as what the PM does is legal, she can not stop it. If a monarch should at some point think of something like that, they’d soon find themselves legislated out of existence.
UK’s monarchy has a slightly more leeway than others, I believe, because the UK doesn’t have a formal written constitution regulating what the monarch may or may not do. But that just makes their position more precarious, rather than less, I suspect.
jpinard
5745
When was the last time parliament was suspended?
I haven’t checked, but probably about this time last year, for the party conferences. Not counting holiday recesses, which may or may not be formally a suspension.
KevinC
5747
My understanding is that it isn’t the suspension itself that’s notable, it’s the length and timing of it.
I don’t know anything about UK politics, though, so any of our fine Brits here feel free to point out how ignorant I am. :)
magnet
5748
April 27, 2017. It was adorable!
Prorogation is similar to a Congressional recess. It normally happens every year. Not last year, though, because they were too busy with Brexit. So considerate of Johnson to finally give MPs a break!
But seriously, on a scale of Dick Procedural Moves I feel it falls somewhere between filibusters and fleeing the state to deny quorum.
It’s the length, timing and political intention of the suspension that is the problem. “Prorogation” in a
BAU parliamentary sense isn’t the issue.
The SNP just gained some more seats.
I think “i refuse to work with Johnson” will give her a better place in the history books.
It’s unduly long, and clear the goal is to avoid scrutiny in the final weeks before we are scheduled to leave the European Union.
The executive should always know better than to do stuff like this. Democracy is fragile, and it scares the hell out of people when the person in charge acts in this sort of way - for good reason. Hence the protests and Parliament Square tonight (still ongoing) and over half a million almost a million signing a petition in a day, etc.
Truth.
Still, it’s amazing how quickly Johnson and Trump have torn down all pretenses of liberal democracy from two of the “oldest” democracies in the Western world. It’ll be many years - if ever - that a Western democracy can chide any other country for anti-democratic practices without being made a joke.
and this is why Tory consumption of oxygen is a crime against humanity. These honourless lying dogs have all stayed silent on the prorogation.
Amber Rudd: “We are not Stuart kings”
Matt Hancock: Proroguing Parliament undermines parliamentary democracy and risks a general election. I rule it out and call on all candidates to do the same
also Matt Hancock: “[prorogation would go against]everything that those men who waded onto those beaches fought and died for”
Sajid Javid: “You don’t deliver democracy by trashing democracy - you can’t just shut down parliament”
Michael Gove: “It would not be true to the best traditions of British democracy” - BBC’s Marr show.
Andrea Leadsom: “No I don’t believe I would (support prorogation) and I don’t believe it would happen”
Nicky Morgan: “Proroguing Parliament is clearly a mad suggestion” - BBC Question Time
and of course, Javid, Gove and Hancock made these statements to get elected as Tory leader.
Strong words from the FT, hardly a bastion of radicalism.
and strong words from the former head of the civil service too. As mentioned before in this thread, the Westminster machinery hate Johnson as much as I do.
