An MP has crossed the aisle. There is no more majority.
Plus 21 Tory MPs voted against the government and have had the whip withdrawn. The government’s majority is now -43.
So the Queen did her duty. She took the advice of her Prime Minister, but by consenting to a prorogation order that gave the MPs time to pass judgment on the PM. Threading the needle.
And I would say No, the Speaker does not have the legal authority to call Parliament into session. Only the Queen has the legal authority to end a session, and to summon a new session. That’s what the prorogation power is.
The Speaker has the authority, under the Rules passed by parliament, to call the House into session when it’s been adjourned. But that’s simply dealing with adjournments. The Speaker can’t override the Queen and exercise the royal prerogative to summon Parliament.
I doubt that, because she doesn’t have enough evidence that Corbin can command a majority. Rather, she could call on the PM and say “I need reassurance that you do in fact have a majority. When will you be advising me to summon Parliament?” ( with the clear implication that if that was not happening soon, she might recall Parliament on her own bat). The difference between your option and mine is that under my option, she’s not choosing the PM, but rather ensuring that the House gets to choose the PM.
Something similar happened in New Brunswick last year, when the provincial election returned a hung parliament. The Premier who called the election had a couple fewer seats in the new Assembly than did the other party. The leader of the other party tried to get the Lt Gov (the Queen’s representative) to dismiss the Premier right away and appoint him, because his party had more seats. The Lt Gov refused, because the Premier had the right to try to work out a deal with the smaller parties and ultimately to face the Parliament. But at the same time, the Lt Gov made it clear that the Premier had to advise her in a reasonable time to summon the House, or she might be forced to summon it on her own motion. Her goal wasn’t to choose between the two parties, neither with a majority, but to ensure that the House got to decide.
This gets to the nub of a major constitutional question. The accepted theory has always been that Parliament is sovereign. But here we find (or rediscover) that Parliament only sits when summoned by the appropriate legal authority. Parliament cannot will itself into existence or continue to sit without permission. There are severe limits on what a government can do without Parliament (taxes historically being the critical point) but for a limited time a determined executive can dispense with Parliament. I don’t think this was entirely appreciated.
I watched part of a recent session of Commons. The contrast with procedures in the U.S. Congress is, of course, huge.
I guess “the other place” is their term for the House of Lords? I think the U.S. House of Reps should find a euphemism to refer to Moscow Mitch’s House of Evil! 
Yes. Or “another place” - both terms are used. The Lords refer to the Commons in the exact same way.
U.K. Lawmakers Pass Brexit Bill, Defying Johnson
So it appears that the conservatives in Britain have developed enough of a spine to put country ahead of party and give their unqualified leader the boot. I admit that as an American I am jealous.
Hey Septimus,
Listen to Northern Piper. He’s got better answers to your hypotheticals than I do.
–Wrenching Spanners
Harrumph! Damn Canadian. Can we change the subject to Westminster pubs? I’m fairly sure I know more about Westminster pubs than he does.
OK, so when May was ousted, it was presumed that Johnson now commanded the confidence of Parliament, which made him the Prime Minister. But now it turns out that, on the first test of his confidence, he failed. Does that mean that he was never actually Prime Minister at all? Does he go down in the historical rolls of Prime Ministers with an asterix next to his name? Was Parliament actually without a prime minister at all, this past while?
Per some fellow on Twitter
UPDATED: Government defeats by MPs for each Prime Minister
Thatcher - 4 in 11 years
Major - 6 in 7 years
Blair - 4 in 10 years
Brown - 3 in 3 years
Cameron - 10 in 6 years
May - 33 in 3 years
Johnson - 3 in 24 hours
Suppose British politicians from throughout the Island joined a new Sorry-About-That-It-Was-All-a-Mistake Party whose plan is to walk to Brussels bare-chested and demand to be flogged. Is it too late even for that? Is the time-honoured English stubbornness so ingrained that the once-great Island will submit with no resistance to the kleptocrats and others who’ve sought Brexit for criminal purposes? That the 52% referendum vote is now an eternal law (even though that election was bought with lies); we can never question that coin-toss again? Proceed with Brexit however wrong-headed that choice might be?
If it were me, I’d say: Withdraw the Article-Whatever, continue the debate softly and soberly, scheduling a confirmational referendum in 2022, say. Kick the bucket down the road three years, and hope cooler thinking then prevails.
Beneficial policy: Weaken Tory, Labour, all Parties. How many MPs might join such a SATIWAM (Sorry-About-That-It-Was-All-a-Mistake) Party. Would any sitting Tories or Labourites, either here or in another place, join SATIWAM?
How many Members of Parliament believe, in their hearts, that Remain is the smarter choice, even now?
The question seems to be: Does the voice of the people matter in the UK?
Do you think the people want a no-deal Brexit?
Given that their leader was selected by a tiny minority of citizens, and he serves at the pleasure of a hereditary monarch, I think the answer is fuck no.
I think that that’s the key. Yes, the majority voted for Brexit; the referendum said nothing about the exact terms of a Brexit.
I suspect that many people who did vote for Brexit (at least, those who put any thought behind it) did so under the assumption that Parliament would conduct a Brexit with some manner of deal with the EU (or the other countries with whom Britain’s only trade agreement is as an EU member).
This BBC article shows that, of those who voted Leave in 2016, only 73% support a no-deal Brexit. Overall, only 38% of British support a no-deal Brexit.
So there’s significant lack of clarity about what the public actually wants. Am I right in thinking that “No Take Backs!” is not settled British law, and that if something is really unclear, it’s both legal and ethical to seek clarity?
If only someone could propose a method for seeking that clarity without being compared to Stalin.
52% of them wanted Brexit.
Not the question that CarnalK asked.