THE newly appointed prime minister of the Conservative government, Boris Johnson, has asked the Queen to prorogue Parliament. Nothing unusual at a time when the parliamentary session is coming to an end, but it has caused a political storm because it has been called by a maverick prime minister in politically unsettled times.
Prorogation has been used in the past by the monarch to suit his needs, calling Parliament to authorise taxes and proroguing to stop its talking and probing into needless questions. Not surprisingly, this move by Johnson has drawn comparisons with the act of Charles I in the 17th century, ending in the monarch losing his head.
But times were different. Charles was at war with Parliament, and there was then no prime minister equivalent of Johnson who conducted business in Parliament while the monarch ruled as a figurehead.
Also, to put matters in greater contrast, there was no referendum then where the people made a decision that Parliament had to carry out.
The present monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, has followed the advice of her prime minister and given consent. If she did not do so she would be courting a constitutional crisis. Far better for her to act on the prime minister’s advice and let him take the blame.
In the past the monarch himself or herself would appear in Parliament for the prorogation. The last time this happened was by Queen Victoria in 1854 but never again. She is said to have disliked the task so much that she stopped it.
The task of reading her assent was given to the Lord Chancellor who, it is said, read it in the first person, as if it was the monarch herself delivering. Now, with the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor (by Tony Blair as PM) the task falls to the leader of the House.
News of Johnson’s intention was received with outrage, mostly by Remainers and their supporters in Parliament. But not all speaking are staunch remainers. Leader of the opposition Labour party Jeremy Corbyn is said to be writing to the Queen in protest.
Speaker of the Commons John Bercow, whose support for the Remainers is an open secret, has had his statement read on the BBC news (he is away on holiday). He called it “an outrage”.
Philip Hammond, chancellor of the Exchequer under Theresa May and now bete noire of the newly anointed Johnson, has also deemed it “an outrage”, adding in it the extra flavour of being undemocratic.
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnel of the Labour party about sums it all up: “Make no mistake, this is a very British coup,” he said on BBC Radio 4’s 1 o’clock news.
Prorogation is no dissolution of Parliament. Parliament’s term is now fixed, it cannot be dissolved barring extraordinary circumstances. And besides, Prime Minister Johnson does not want fresh elections – not yet – he merely wants to push through a no-deal Brexit.
This was the signal Johnson gave to G7 leaders meeting last week . He told them not to listen to those who wanted to stop Brexit. They could not and they would not, he said.
This, in part, is at the heart of the present crisis. Parliament, for all its efforts, has not been able to agree on anything to send even the merest positive signal to Europeans on the other side. It is arguable for the Johnson government therefore that this impasse has justified his call for prorogation.
The outrage from parliamentarians is that the new prime minister who has made only one appearance to meet his answerability before Parliament, has now asked Parliament to stop further business – autumn prorogation it is now called -- until the Queen’s Speech in the new session.
Prorogation means the end of all pending business. All motions lapse, no pending questions answered, no questions can be tabled during its progress. Johnson and other ministers will now just say: “Sorry, there was no time to answer that before prorogation.” Full stop.
There will be four and a half weeks to the Queen’s Speech, which is a long time in politics.
One commentator sums it all up another way: This prorogation has been proposed during a political crisis that is now building up to a constitutional crisis.
Some are now talking of taking the matter up for judicial review but there is uncertainty if there are enough grounds for that.
What can be questioned now is not the prorogation but its duration, says Prof Vernon Bernard Bogdanov, an expert on the Constitution. Some may go to court to argue that this is an unreasonable request by Johnson, he added.
But the government may argue that Parliament has taken too long to make its own decision, he said.
The writer is an NST columnist