How is suspending parliament legal?

[nothingsreallynewunderthesun]

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?

My friend works in the House and always looks forward to prorogation.

@RedCowboyBoots it’s the queens job to act as a check against the powers of government and parliament. That’s why she signs off on legislation. The British democratic system is a very elaborate construction of a series of separations of and checks on powers to prevent any one (executive, parliamentary or, judiciary) having more power. The elected nature of the House of Commons is only a small part of democracy in the British sense.

Parliament is normally only prorogued for a few days though isn't it?

When was the last time it was prorogued for over a month?

This is not normal, now is the timing a coincidence!

@BogglesGoggles

Nah, I don't buy that at all. They have no real powers and know that if they try to do anything that disrupts the government in any way they're at risk of abolition. The Queen's just a figurehead who waves and shakes hands with people.

I'd love to have seen the Queen refuse, but it was never going to happen or the right wingers (who profess to love the Royals) would have been campaigning to remove them instantly.

The reason it can happen is because our "constitution", such as it is, is based on MP, Lords, the Judiciary etc., being "gentlemen", who always do things in the "right" way.

Once you get a crazed, narcissistic, sociopath in charge and on a power grab cf the USA, this all goes out of the window, as they don't give a shiny sh!t about the conventions and norms. And, unfortunately, his opposition is still playing by the rules. I'm afraid Godwin's Law has been superseded by events. The comparisons with 1930's Germany are too myriad to ignore.

"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."
*Citation needed.

This is a coup. This is anti-democracy. The timing is not accidental for cryin' out loud, it is specifically to stop Parliament from putting through legislation against a No Deal scenario, which everyone said would never happen.

No one voted for this, however you try to re-write history. The option was not there.

@RedCowboyBoots read a book on the constitution then. That’s how it works. I get your point about the pressure not to get involved but legally these are the roles and powers of the monarch.

I voted leave expecting a no-deal scenario. I think quite a few people did tbh.

@DorisDaysDadsDogsDead that’s a good point. There are a lot of arguments for codifying and reforming the constitution. The changing demographic of British politicians must be the most compelling.

It's legal and that's why HM agreed with it. It's wrong but then so is Brexit

these are the roles and powers of the monarch

In theory. I mean, they had to justify her continued existence as our queen, didn't they? She had to be involved somehow, but realistically it's just a bit part and I think anyone expecting her to stick her neck out to go against the government is pretty naive.

There are a lot of arguments for codifying and reforming the constitution. The changing demographic of British politicians must be the most compelling.

This is so true!

Couldn't resist...

at least 52% voted Leave

52% of those who voted, less than half the entire electorate and far less than half the population as a whole. Not including the millions of Brits in Europe excluded from the vote.

I was trying to remember earlier how he’d insulted Brenda.

It’s a coup, of course it is. Fucking hell. How can anyone legitimise this craziness?

Can we put aside the question of 52% voted leave in 2016, for just one day, and have a think about the point that a British Prime Minister elected by about 0.14% has just shut down Parliament at a time when the country is not far off national emergency status?

Can we put aside the question of 52% voted leave in 2016, for just one day, and have a think about the point that a British Prime Minister elected by about 0.14% has just shut down Parliament at a time when the country is not far off national emergency status?

No - we can't put aside a legal vote in which a majority voted to leave - Boris Johnson is simply being democratic and carrying out the wishes of the people as expressed in a democratic vote

Prime Ministers are never elected by the people, so the % is quite frankly irrelevant - that is our democratic system and it has worked well for many year...

He is not 'shutting down parliament' he is simply following the normal democratic process to establish a new period of parliament allowing a resetting of many things such as private members bills / etc. - it allows him to set out his agenda as PM (which is not all about Brexit) and to have a Queen's Speech in which to lay out those plans... Yes, he is using it as a tool as well (he is a politician, why wouldn't he?!) but to deliver what has been requested by and promised to the people...

we are nowhere near a state of national emergency - this type of hysteria is more damaging than the reality - perhaps it is time that people stopped believing the hype in the media?

we have years ahead of us during which things will change - there is no apocalypse happening in two months time!

a legal vote

That's questionable. It was, as I'm sure you know, purely advisory. Had it been binding the funding issues would have made it illegal and it would have had to be re-run.

Wesh I live near Brussels and I voted in the referendum. The rules have always been very clear...if you are not on the Forces electoral register, then if you live outside the UK for 15 years, you cannot vote.

The referendum was more an opinion poll than a legally binding national decision making tool. It was only a legal vote in that the UK doesn't have laws against referendums (some countries do, for fairly obvious reasons...)

The referendum was more an opinion poll than a legally binding national decision making tool. It was only a legal vote in that the UK doesn't have laws against referendums (some countries do, for fairly obvious reasons...)

No, it really really wasn't. When the government sent out a leaflet telling every UK voter what would happen if we voted Leave (ie.Leave the EU) it was pretty clear that it wasn't an opinion poll. David Cameron made it crystal clear that he would honour whatever result occurred. He most certainly wasn't soliciting opinions. At the end of the leaflet, it actually said " This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide." (I have it in front of me) So yes, absolutely not an opinion poll.