Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

How is suspending parliament legal?

58 replies

nothingsreallynewunderthesun · 28/08/2019 16:09

Keeping the pros and cons of Brexit itself completely out of it -

How is it legal to just not let parliament sit for a month in order to prevent any parliamentary democratic process?

Isn't that pretty much a putch or coup?

OP posts:
LaurieFairyCake · 28/08/2019 16:13

Yes. This would be called a "right wing coup" if it was one of those tinpot countries.

It's anti democracy.

Original poster
nothingsreallynewunderthesun · 28/08/2019 16:36

There seems to be too little outrage - why are people not up in (metaphorical) arms?

The only person who seems to be awake is John Bercow...

OP posts:
Singlenotsingle · 28/08/2019 16:52

John Bercow is permanently outraged about everything the Conservative government does.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Politics
Original poster
nothingsreallynewunderthesun · 28/08/2019 16:54

Singlenotsingle some might say that's a reasonable reaction...

No matter what your politics though how the fuck is just not letting parliament sit nor vote in order to make unilateral decisions anything but a coup?

OP posts:
CreatedBySombra · 28/08/2019 17:06

After the Queen granted suspension I am now officially anti-royalist. If our head of state can't protect her people from an anti-democratic move by a non-elected Prime Minister then she has literally no value or credibility.

Politics aside this is a dangerous precedent...especially because the last time someone pulled this move to railroad legislative changes through without approval at a contentious time for the national psyche was in Germany in 1933.

ginghambox · 28/08/2019 17:08

6 posts in and we have the Nazis, well done.

Original poster
nothingsreallynewunderthesun · 28/08/2019 17:36

ginghambox the problem with Godwin's law is that even if a situation was actually similar to the rise of the Nazis, nobody would be allowed to mention it without being ridiculed ...

Is it fine then? Fine to suspend parliament immediately after the summer break for a month to avoid parliament debating Brexit and allow unilateral action by a prime minister whose been very publicly revealed to have misled the public on a massive scale and who has not won an election?

Wouldn't we consider any other country doing the same to be no longer democratic?

OP posts:
IAskTooManyQuestions · 28/08/2019 17:39

Its nota month, its actually 6 parliamentary days.

look up a site called simplepolictics.co.uk and it will be explained in simple terms

Milicentbystander72 · 28/08/2019 17:47

The last time a monarch went against Parliament we had a civil war.

The Queen has no choice.

Original poster
nothingsreallynewunderthesun · 28/08/2019 18:21

9th September til 14th October is (just over) a month no matter how it's spun.

OP posts:
akkakk · 28/08/2019 18:24

It is actually a part of the way parliament works... at its simplest:

we have rough 4.5 - 5 year terms between general elections
within that we have roughly yearly periods between Queen's speeches - these are known as a sitting of parliament - and they finish when the PM asks the Queen to do this - suspend sitting and then return for Queen's Speech and a new sitting...

doing so is a way of resetting the clock on lots of things - including the ability for private members' bills etc. - all of which have currently run out in the current sitting - therefore actually to continue the current sitting should be considered undemocratic as it reduces options for the 'smaller' people in parliament to have their voice heard...

it is standard for a new PM to do this & the current sitting is one of the longest in the last 400+ years, so is overdue this step...

Boris Johnson has therefore chosen a time to minimise disruption to parliament - it will actually only lose a couple of days... (conference season) - but it is a standard pattern of how parliament works...

caringcarer · 28/08/2019 18:31

This session of parliament is actually the longest ever recorded and in order to introduce new domestic agenda Boris has to suspend parliament and have new session opening with Queen's speech. It is normal to suspend parliament around time of parlimentry party conferences. Brown suspended parliament for 5 weeks, Major also suspended for longer than Boris is doing. The only reason this move is contentious is because parliament voted to leave EU on 31st of October. Parliament can still discuss/debate Brexit for 3-5 days before parliament suspended and after Oct 14th. Corbyn still able to call vote of no confidence in BJ if he wishes.
ore

TeamUnicorn · 28/08/2019 18:37

Nothing surprises me anymore, this is an absolute shit show.

Tbh that is all the words I can form 'shit show'

redlily12 · 28/08/2019 18:44

the reason there appears to be 'too little outrage' is because at least 52% voted Leave and if there was another vote tomorrow it would undoubtedly be higher. Numerous, including very recent polls indicate this. People are sick of the delays and stalling and hearing daily rants from Brussels about what we can/cannot do/have etc. I appreciate that on Mumsnet 99% of posters appear to be of the view that Brexit = Apocalypse. However, Mumsnetters represent a select section of opinion which rarely accurately reflects the majority view.

Happysummer2020 · 28/08/2019 18:46

If the supreme court rule this an illegal act it will be interesting to see what that means for the Queen signing it.

Just another reason to regard the Royals as a useless bloddy institution.

VladmirsPoutine · 28/08/2019 18:46

It's not a coup. It's outrageous yes but it's not illegal. Parliament is prorogued for about a couple of weeks regardless, it's just this time Boris has extended it. It's not agains the constitution and indeed not illegal. It's just the timing wrt Brexit 31 October that has caused the uproar. Don't get me wrong I despise it and think it entirely hypocritical - if Brexit was to regain sovereignty then how does it make sense to suspend the Parliament in order to regain sovereignty.

That said, it's pretty much a scare tactic to bully MPs to accepting a deal... any deal... he comes back with or face no deal. You could argue it's a stroke of evil genius.

SierraNevada · 28/08/2019 18:46

I can’t do links but a change.org petition has got pushing 100,000 signatures in a couple of hours. I’m going to a flash rally in my city centre tomorrow evening . I don’t know anyone who isn’t outraged.

notastealthboast · 28/08/2019 18:47

Yeh I see the royals falling completely out of favour after this

Original poster
nothingsreallynewunderthesun · 28/08/2019 18:47

Oh come on akkakk the timing absolutely isn't a coincidence and designed to block parliamentary debate.

OP posts:
VladmirsPoutine · 28/08/2019 18:58

@notastealthboast It is not their fault. The Queen is instructed by the government of the day. It would have been more of a 'constitutional' crisis if the queen had refused.

Original poster
nothingsreallynewunderthesun · 28/08/2019 19:15

redlily12 the slim majority who voted leave were not all voting for a no deal crash out were they? In fact weren't we told that'd never happen?

OP posts:
akkakk · 28/08/2019 19:17

If the supreme court rule this an illegal act it will be interesting to see what that means for the Queen signing it.

Once the queen agrees it (i.e. done) it is not legal for MPs to refuse to accept it - as to whether a legal challenge has any ground - I suspect not, and to continue would be to challenge the very heart of our democratic system...

Oh come on akkakk the timing absolutely isn't a coincidence and designed to block parliamentary debate.

of course it is not a coincidence - Boris Johnson is quite intelligent - but do also consider the posturing from all the others who are saying we don't want x we don't want y, we are going to stop the PM do this, we are going to block this - where are they actually constructively saying what they would do - they aren't because they have no answers - the role they are playing is parasitical to bring down the government - it is all to do with their power - nothing to do with being constructive for the country... Currently BJ is the only one actually getting on and doing his job - I would love a review into why we are paying so many salaries to MPs who are not doing their job - which is to work out how to deal with the referendum - a lot of hot air from some very unimpressive people...

the simple reality - whether liked or not is:

  • it is the right process for parliament at this point
  • it is legal - in fact to continue the sitting could be deemed dodgy
  • it is a necessity to do it at some point and it should have been done a while back
  • BJ has deliberately chosen the dates to allow time before if MPs want to have a vote of no confidence / and time afterwards to agree any legislation for Brexit - he could have extended it to block both of those if he was being awkward - he hasn't
UrsulaPandress · 28/08/2019 19:20

A voice of calm and reason. Thank you akkakk

RedCowboyBoots · 28/08/2019 19:28

If our head of state can't protect her people from an anti-democratic move by a non-elected Prime Minister then she has literally no value or credibility

Well, they are the monarchy. Having a monarchy at all is undemocratic by nature... Why would it be the queen's job, of all people, to ensure democracy is upheld?

BogglesGoggles · 28/08/2019 19:29

Do they not teach this in schools? It’s called prorogation. Here is a link:
www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/prorogation/

@Milicentbystander72 are you talking about Charles I? He prevented parliament from forming. This is not even remotely comparable. See the link above. It’s what he did after Parliament was dissolved (not allowing a new one to form and ruling without a parliament) coupled with his catholic sympathies (and the belief in absolute monarchy so intimately related to the former) which led to the civil war. Prorogation is standard andhas never caused a civil war in Britain.