It’s already happened. There was a meeting of the opposition leaders on Monday, and a meeting open to all Remainer MP’s on Tuesday at Church House in Westminster. Both meetings were covered by the media. No Tory Remainers attended the Tuesday meeting.
Though without explicitly denouncing his Sovereign Lord, in this article Adam Tooze agrees with me:
Yeah, it sure feels to me like the Queen going along with this is more “playing politics” than refusing would have been.
The Queen is not the chief executive. The Prime Minister is. The Queen is simply the chief rubber-stamper. There are checks and balances, but they’re based on judicial review and the sovereignty of Parliament over Government. Having said, that the UK is edging towards a constitutional crisis. If Parliament passes a bill, and the Prime Minister refuses to obey it, an intention some commentators are making suspicious allegations is being planned, then the UK will have crossed the line into a full-blown constitutional crisis.
Stock up on popcorn, it may be a thriller.
No, because she doesn’t have political authority. The PM and Cabinet do, and they are the ones accountable to the public. That’s what responsible government means: the elected government is responsible for its actions, to the Commons and to the public. And the public appears to be responding, with all the means available to the public: political pressure through marches,meetings and petitions. Some Tory MPs are pulling away from the government. That’s exactly the debate that should be ocurring: what do the MPs and the people think of the policy choice made by the PM and Cabinet?
We had a similar case in Canada a century ago. The PM and his Cabinet were facing a serious corruption scandal, and Parliament was investigating. The PM went to the Gov Gen and asked for a dissolution. The GovGen refused and called on the Leader of the Opposition to form a government. That government also collapsed, triggering an election.
And what was the election about? Was it about thecserious corruption in the federal government? Nope. That issue pretty much disappeared. Mthevwhole election was fought on whether the Crown 's representative had improperly intruded in politics, and the first PM, whose government had presided over the internal corruption, was returned to office.
If the Queen had refused the prorogation, the same thing could have happened. The political issue would have been whether the monarch was intruding into politics, over the policy decisions of the government with a (razor-slim) Commons majority. That would have allowed Boris to deflect the issue onto the monarch, and away from his decision to close Parliament. And if he had resigned,the situation would get worse: who would HM call on to form a government to replace Boris and Co? Who has a majority in the Commons, if not Boris? If there’s no government, how can the country be governed?
Let the people judge the PM and Cabinet, not get into a fight between Queen and elected majority in the Commons.
(As an aside, I am bemused that it tends to be the American posters who take the position in these threads that the Queen should intervene. You’re the ones who decisively rejected royal authoritynin politics. Why do you argue for Royal intervention now? it’s the government that has the elected members; they’re the ones who take responsibility for political choices, not the Queen. It’s very puzzling. )
Well, it’s not like it was any of us personally. :dubious:
And now I see that dalej42 has started a thread about the rumours of a snap election if the Commons decisively blocks Brexit this week. That’s exactly what the debate should be, in my opinion, not issues involving the Queen.
Boris: curtails Parliament’s time to debate Brexit.
Elected MPs: “What? That means we only have a week to decide what to do [yes you wankers, because you pissed away two and a half years already since May invoked article 50]. We may have to reject this week!”
Boris: “If you reject, we’re off to the polls,”
Elected MPs: “Decisions, decisions!”
And that is just the right debate to be having at this late stage. Not discussions of various century-old precedents about when the Crown acted and didn’t act. It’s time for the politicians to do what they were elected to do, and make a decision. If not, time for the people to vote.
Because just like the Electoral College, if it holds a right which never makes a difference then it is literally useless despite its apparent power. We’re not used to having useless heads of state, so thinking that she might intervene is a way of resolving this.
I’m not pro-royal intervention in this case for all the reasons you mentioned but I would be, had Boris done something which would guarantee that the UK crashes out without the consent of Parliament and the members of the prorogued parliament had a vast majority that opposed him in this. Even though I would not hold high hopes that she would intervene, I would desire it in order to prevent a worldwide recession, and it would have legitimacy in the form of support from Parliament.
The Queen’s job as rubber-stamper-in-chief is to uphold precedent. Precedent is that the Prime Minister has to command the confidence of Parliament. If a Prime Minister suspends Parliament just because he knows that he doesn’t actually command their confidence, and that if he doesn’t suspend, they’ll say so, that’s a very serious breach of precedent. When the Queen is asked to break with precedent, her job is to say no.
If there were a vast majority in the Commons opposed to Brexit, he wouldn’t be PM.
And the Parliament has done nothing to prevent the crash-out, except wring its hands over all of the options presented and say “I don’t like that. Don’t you have something better in the back room?”
The harsh political reality is that the Remainers and the Brexiters seem very evenly divided, and that indecision is reflected in the Commons. It’s not the Queen’s job to intervene in a highly divided political issue. It’s the job of the elected politicians to come up with a clear choice. If they can’t do that, they made their choice to crash out back when they gave May the statutory authority to invoke Aricle 50 without any parliamentary conditions.
That argument would carry weight if Boris was trying to prevent Parliament from meeting until after the crash-out on Hallowe’en.
But that’s not what he’s done.
It also would carry weight if it is clear Boris does not command a majority, and that was obvious to the Queen.
But it isn’t clear. A majority of 1 is still a majority.
Parliament meets tomorrow. The Opposition can move no-confidence.
If they do, successfully, the situation is different. But if they don’t challenge Boris’s right to govern, then they are just wankers who will continue dithering away.
Either way, the Queen has done her job: her new PM faces the House tomorrow and will have to demonstrate he has a majority.
Right, I agree on the evenly-dividedness, but just like not agreeing to proclaim a prorogation would turn opinion against the Queen, I would at least hope that if Boris did something boneheaded like set an election for November 1 that it would wake up enough Brexiteers to the erosion of Parliamentary power and they’d turn against him, but that isn’t a complete given.
If a majority of PMs oppose Johnson, what can they do? Can they convene the House of Commons during the proroguation? No? Then you have a “democracy” with no checks and balances. BoJo didn’t even receive a majority vote in Commons or country confirming him as PM.
It is with sadness and apprehension that we see a man take power like a dictator in such an important democracy. Especially since democracy in the other great Anglophonic power has also been subverted.
I’m sure that the U.K. is still more democratic than Siam. But even here, a Constitutional Court has overridden illegal actions of dictators. And in 1991, when protests against an unelected P.M. became too disruptive, His Majesty (nominally a figurehead just like Elizabeth) intervened, politely suggesting that the P.M. stand aside.
Yet in the venerable British democracy, BoJo, acting purely on his own whim, can suspend the power of Parliament and there is no constitutional check or balance? Is this the “democracy” you’re defending?
(ETA: And while BoJo claims to be acting on the British people’s chosen course, commentators I respect think Brexit was passed due to Lies. Did Russia help, or was your Fake News all home-grown?)
Part of it may be the abiding interest of many Americans in the British monarchy. Part of it may be that we think, over the span of decades, that HM has shown she has a pretty good head on her shoulders. And part of it may be that we like your particular head of state a lot better than our own just now.
LOL. “Just what you see on the shelf, buddy.”
Over the next couple of days we’ll find out if the checks and balances work. Parliament starts back tomorrow, and there’s some Court actions too. Stay tuned!
The check is the House of Commons, followed by the people.
The House meets tomorrow.
The Leader of the Opposition can stand up and move “That this House has no-confidence in this Government.” [As an aside, that would require Jermy Corbin to actually make a decision instead of grand-standing, so I’m not holding my breath.)
If no motion is made, or if Boris & Co. defeat the motion, then they have confirmed their right to govern.
If the motion passes, then Boris & Co have 14 days to cobble together a government that has the confidence of the House, and then pass a motion of confidence, showing they have the confidence of a majority of the Commons.
If Boris & Co fail to do so, then there must be a general election within 25 days. The people then decide if they want Boris as PM.
And note that because of the prorogation order, the 14 day period is shortened, because it runs out after prorogation. So if the House votes non-confidence, Boris and Co will only have a few days to pass a motion of confidence.
If Boris & Co. can’t get a motion of confidence passed before the prorogation order kicks in, then there will be an election.
Overall, that seems like a pretty good check on the executive. Can the US House of Representatives get rid of President Trump by forcing an election in 14 days?
I’m not a Brit, so not my circus, not my monkeys, not my news system. Dunno.
It’s fair to say that the Queen is effectively just a figurehead when asked to carry out the Prime Ministers’ request.
Sadly it’s also fair to say that Boris Johnson is just a figurehead himself as Dominic Cummings is actually running the country.
A current example/thread:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=881321
Personally I’m not sure the US House of Representatives could organise a lunch order in a mere 14 days.
It’s unclear. It would certainly have been challenged in court. In fact, it was already being challenged in a Scottish court. That hearing is happening today.
Regardless of that hearing, Parliament already passed a bill forcing Parliament to be in session on 04 September 2019 and 09 October 2019. This was the amended Northern Ireland Executive Formation Bill 2019.
But going with the hypothetical, could the Speaker of the House convene Parliament if a majority of MP’s asked him to? I haven’t seen any legal commentary on this question, but I believe the answer is yes. An MP is an MP all the time, not just when Parliament is in session. If a verifiable majority of MP’s declare they want Parliament to be in session, I believe the Speaker would oblige them and it would be illegal for the government to try and stop them. Expect massive demonstrations in favour of convening the session. Hell, I’d probably join them.
For the other hypothetical, what would happen if a verifiable majority of MP’s expressed no confidence in the government outside of a Vote of No Confidence? For example, if Parliament was not in session and the Prime Minister was blocking Parliament from sitting, what would happen if a majority of MP’s signed a formal letter to the Queen declaring that they had no confidence in the Prime Minister? My guess is that she would defer to any judicial reviews underway that would allow her to avoid a decision. But if the courts declined to make a decision in either direction, then my opinion is that, as a last resort, she would then ask Jeremy Corbyn, as leader of the opposition, to try and form a government.
Throwing around these hypothetical ideas can be amusing. Fortunately, the UK isn’t being forced to consider them for real. Yet.