
UK Government to Ask Queen to Suspend Parliament - aries1980
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632
======
sammorrowdrums
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
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.

~~~
tremon
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.

~~~
sammorrowdrums
So Johnson in his speech (which is available in the video in the BBC article)
is suggesting it is normal for a new government to take a break to set out a
new programme of government (which is delivered in a Queen's speech, also
mentioned in his speech).

Some people who see his viewpoint are happy to overlook the timing and don't
necessarily see it as undemocratic.

There is another element. Direct democracy believers feel that parliament is
trying to crush democracy (by potentially overturning a referendum result).

Representative democracy believers cannot accept that their representatives
would be denied the ability to represent their constituents at such a critical
time of major constitutional change.

So the dual narrative was a reference to how some people see this step as
delivering the power and will of the people.

Others see it as a dangerous subversion of democracy.

Happy to clarify more if I'm being unclear but you can read the comment
section on the BBC article and you'll see incredibly polar comments. The dual
narrative is precisely that. People read the same article, see the same speech
and have a completely different understanding of it.

Perhaps that's unremarkable to you, but in the UK it's been profound and
profoundly different from the mainstream politics I've seen my entire life.

[Edit - clarification of crush democracy]

------
flexie
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...

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
Caesar didn't take power in a coup. He asked senate for power and senate
granted it.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
He brought his army to town, then "asked" the senate for power. That looks a
lot like a coup.

------
L0stRegulator
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
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
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.

------
velox_io
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.

------
pjc50
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
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
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
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) ...

------
treerock
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
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/)

------
chicob
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.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
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
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.

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

~~~
votepaunchy
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.

~~~
NikkiA
> 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)

------
sorokod
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
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.

~~~
vanderZwan
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
The internal argument is itrelevant as the state persues strategic policies
and goals regardless.

~~~
vanderZwan
Yes, but what those policies and goals are change depending on who is in
charge

~~~
sorokod
Absolutely - and nothing else matters.

------
vanderZwan
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
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-
elizab...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/world/europe/queen-elizabeth-
brexit-britain.html)

~~~
Brakenshire
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.

------
AnimalMuppet
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.

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

~~~
henryaj
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
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.

------
usr1106
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.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
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
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!

------
fortyseven
Breaking noose. ️

------
peter303
Trump is drooling that he wished he had this power.

~~~
llarsson
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/preside...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-
emergency-powers/576418/)

------
mrtksn
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.

~~~
Brakenshire
It's social media. It allows anyone to bypass expert judgement of democratic
norms and broadcast to create a tribal group around themselves.

