I was reading up on the latest Brexit shenanigans and came across an article about whether or not May would call for (schedule? demand? propose?) a Queen’s Speech. From context and from Wiki I gather that such a thing happens when a new parliament begins. It seems to be the case (but please correct me if wrong) that May can’t propose a new legislative agenda without one, but she doesn’t want to end the parliamentary session because her deal with the DUP would expire. Is this accurate and if not what’s the case?
There have been statements that May would like a new session of Parliament because the Speaker of the House of Commons Bercow is resistant to additional meaningful votes on the Withdrawal bill [there are rules that the same proposed law can be repeatedly brought up for vote in one session of Parliament–unless there are significant changes]. With a new session of Parliament there can be new votes.
That sounds like the most probable reason. However, I’ve heard such a thing is incredibly rare and an extreme measure. AIUI the last time that was done it was to reform the House of Lords and limit it’s power. If she does it just to get another vote on her deal, I can easily see the opposition crying foul and Bercow ruling it improper if she’s too blatant about it.
On the other hand, I’ve also heard May is planning to resign as Prime Minister, and suspect that might involve starting a new session of parliament under the new PM.
No, e nding a session is routine. Each session of Parliament is normally a year long, from spring to spring. After a session is ended, the new session starts with the Queen’s Speech.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/calendar/
Parliament is actually overdue for the session to end. Back in 2017 the Government announced the session would be two years long, to get all the necessary legislation passed in an orderly fashion to implement Brexit on March 29, 2019 (Ha!).
The Queen’s Speech is the government’s statement of what it wishes to accomplish over the following parliamentary session, which is typically a year. The speech is read out by the Queen (or her representative), but it is written by the government. The speech is followed by a motion to approve the speech (in other words, the government’s agenda) which Parliament votes on. That motion is a motion of confidence which has to pass. If it doesn’t pass, it means that Parliament doesn’t support the government’s agenda, which means the government has to resign or call a new election. (I believe that after resigning, the Prime Minister can attempt to form a new government, but it’s unlikely that would happen.)
After the 2017 election, Government decided that the following Parliamentary session would be two years. That meant that the government’s agenda (aka Brexit) would not change after the first year. That two years is nearly up, so supposedly May and her government have to organise a new Queen’s speech. However, May is reportedly considering delaying the Queen’s speech, thus extending the Parliamentary session. That’s problematic. Some MP’s are stating that May has no agenda besides Brexit, and therefore the next Queen’s speech is constitutionally required. Others are stating that Parliament is directionless at the moment, and Government must provide a Queen’s speech in order to set direction for the future. In theory, a Parliamentary motion requiring a Queen’s speech could be tabled and voted on. Regardless, if May does extend the Parliamentary session in order to avoid a Queen’s speech, her critics will label her as weak and cowardly.
The reason May is reluctant to issue a new Queen’s speech is that it will mark the end of the current Supply and Confidence agreement with the DUP. In the new Queen’s speech, May should state what direction she wants Brexit to take. If that direction is that she still wants to pass her current Withdrawal Agreement bill, which the DUP is opposed to, then the DUP could refuse to vote in favour of the motion of confidence.
For a current newspaper report, see: Theresa May could put off Queen's speech amid Brexit turmoil | Queen's speech | The Guardian
Thank you for the links. I just rechecked the explanation I heard and it actually said “dissolve or prorogue parliament” which I’d assumed just meant ‘end the session’. Here’s the video (key part is ~9:35) where I heard this: https://youtu.be/4FWL1TFhHIw?t=575 , to clarify what I heard (and am now questioning).
I don’t click on video links, so I don’t know what that’s about, but first, there’s the difference between a Parliament, a session and a sitting.
After an election, a new Parliament is called. There’s no carryover of the business from the previous parliament.
Parliament meets in sessions, usually one session per year. When a session ends, most of the Parliamen/ pending business ends (“dies on the order paper”), but there are motions that can be used to bring something back. Alternatively, new bills can be introduced.
Then there’s sittings. That’s within the context of the session and doesn’t interrupt or terminate pending business. It just means Parliament is sitting and conducting business.
And here’s how the three stages end.
First, a sitting ends when the House of Commons passes a motion to adjourn. Right now, the Commons is adjourned for the Easter break. When they come back, they’ll take up business exactly where they left off.
A session ends when the Crown prorogues Parliament. That’s one of the powers of the Crown under the Royal prerogative, exercised on the advice of the Government. Prorogation normally happens once a year, to end one session and start a new one.
Dissolution ends a particular Parliament and triggers a general election. Dissolution used to be done. Y the Crown on the advice of the Government, but is. Ow done by a vote of Parliament itsel.
The thing is, all three of these (adjournment, prorogation and dissolution) are routine stages in the parliamentary cycle.
Never mind.
So Brexit aside, is the government prohibited from introducing legislation not in the agenda as described in the Queen’s Speech? I assume there is allowance for emergency issues. But what if a new study is completed saying, I don’t know, new standards for food safety are needed. Could the government act on that by proposing new legislation, or would that have to wait for a new Parliament and a new agenda/Queen’s Speech?
No, Parliament can always introduce new bills, even if not in the Queen’s Speech.
Rather, the Rules of the House of Commons provide that at the opening of a new session of Parliament, the Queen will present her speech. Although it’s called the Queen’s Speech, it is prepared by the Government of the day (i.e. The Prime Minister and Cabinet). It sets out the general policy plans of the Government for the upcoming session.
The Rules then provide that there will be a debate on the Speech. That is, the MPs debate the general policy framework provided by the Government. At the end, there is a vote on whether the Commons approves the general outline of the Government’s policies.
But here’s the kicker: the vote on the speech is a confidence matter. If the Commons does not vote in favour of the Speech, the Government has been defeated in a confidence matter and either must resign, or move the dissolution of the House, triggering new elections.
The problem for May is that if there is a new session and Queen’s Speech, she’s going to have to put her Brexit plan into it. If her Brexit plan is the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Irish backstop, the DUP will vote against her, in all likelihood, because they oppose the backstop. If the Opposition parties all vote against the Speech, then the Government will have been defeated.
So maybe she doesn’t put the Withdrawal Agreement in the Speech? That too is likely to pose problems, because that is the most significant issue facing the Government and the Commons. If the Speech is silent on Brexit, she’ll likely be defeated, because that would be seen as an admission that she has no plan for Brexit. The true Brexiteers would likely have to vote against it, and again the Government falls.
Try to get rid of the requirement for the Speech? Would need an amendment to the Rules, and may well be seen as a confidence measure as well. If she’s defeated in that procedural vote, then even if it’s not confidence, she still has to have the Speech.
(Note: all comments about the Rules are a bit tentative, as I don’t have a copy of Erskine May handy and am going from memory. )
Erskine May is at some point this year going to be publicly available online for free!
That will be greatly appreciated. The hard-bound is hideously expensive!
Do the members have to keep up the pretense that the speech is actually the Queen’s during the debate?
Do members opposed to the policies say things like “If the Queen thinks we should exit the EU, then she is a bloody fool!”?
No, because the Speech is always framed along the lines of “My Government will introduce the Rainbow Unicorn Act, ensuring all Britons have access to free unicorn rides.”
During the debate on the Speech, the government members all say that the Rainbow Unicorn Act will be the greatest addition to Britain’s social safety net since Bevin.
The Opposition members will say that the Government and its supporters are grievously misunderstanding the availability of rainbow unicorns in the United Kingdom and are proposing an unworkable solution to the unicorn problem.
And the Queen sits in Buck House, watching the telly and probably thinking, “Lord, what fools these mortals be!”
While studiously keeping silent on the entire unicorn issue.
Would Theresa May be that unhappy about losing? It seems that Brexit is such a mess that she might prefer her party to lose.
I would leave it to the UK Dopers to comment, but my impression from across the pond is that she is doing everything she can to keep her party together, even at the expense of a workable Brexit. I don’t think she wants to be the PM who loses power for her party.
Great reply. Thank-you.
Got it in one. This has been the problem all along: the Tories have a diehard group of Europhobe/Eurosceptic MPs, enough of whom are so irreconcilable on the issue that when there isn’t a substantial enough majority they can and do present a major problem. It happened for John Major on the Maastricht Treaty, to the point that he put himself up for re-election as leader to force the issue (only his principal tormentor bottled it), and the Treaty only squeaked through with Labour support.
She has already lost power for her party by calling the last election. To be fair, though, she thinks she has and is offering a workable Brexit: it’s just that both Europhobes and Europhiles disagree with her.
That’s pretty much what Tony Blaire did in 2007. The economy was in a mess and he was mired in controversy over the WMD issue, so he quit and handed the poison chalice to Gordon Brown.
They’ve got a ways to go before they break the record, though.
Is this automatically true in the UK any more? I thought that the Fixed Terms Parliament Act made it so that motions of no confidence basically had to be “this house has no confidence in the government”, and there weren’t any motions that were automatically confidence motions any more.