Parliament to be suspended by Queen

Rabble rabble.

Parliament will be suspended just days after MPs return to work in September - and only a few weeks before the Brexit deadline.

Boris Johnson said a Queen's Speech would take place after the suspension, on 14 October, to outline his "very exciting agenda".

But it means the time MPs have to pass laws to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October would be cut.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow said it was a "constitutional outrage".

The Speaker, who does not traditionally comment on political announcements, continued: "However it is dressed up, it is blindingly obvious that the purpose of [suspending Parliament] now would be to stop [MPs] debating Brexit and performing its duty in shaping a course for the country."

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "Suspending Parliament is not acceptable, it is not on. What the prime minister is doing is a smash and grab on our democracy to force through a no deal," he said.

He said when MPs return to the Commons next Tuesday, "the first thing we'll do is attempt legislation to prevent what [the PM] is doing", followed by a vote of no confidence "at some point".

Three Conservative members of the Queen's Privy Council took the request to suspend Parliament to the monarch's Scottish residence in Balmoral on Wednesday morning on behalf of the prime minister.

It has now been approved, allowing the government to suspend Parliament no earlier than Monday 9 September and no later than Thursday 12 September, until Monday 14 October.

Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was at the meeting with the Queen, said the move was a "completely proper constitutional procedure."

Earlier, Mr Johnson said suggestions the suspension was motivated by a desire to force through a no deal were "completely untrue".

He said he did not want to wait until after Brexit "before getting on with our plans to take this country forward", and insisted there would still be "ample time" for MPs to debate the UK's departure.

"We need new legislation. We've got to be bringing forward new and important bills and that's why we are going to have a Queen's Speech," Mr Johnson added.

Legal precedent and challenge

Shutting down Parliament - known as prorogation - happens after the prime minister advises the Queen to do it.

The decision to do it now is highly controversial because opponents say it would stop MPs being able to play their full democratic part in the Brexit process.

A number of high profile figures, including former Prime Minister John Major, have threatened to go to the courts to stop it, and a legal challenge led by the SNP's justice spokeswoman, Joanna Cherry, is already working its way through the Scottish courts.

After the announcement, Sir John said he had "no doubt" Mr Johnson's motive was to "bypass a sovereign Parliament that opposes his policy on Brexit", and he would continue to seek legal advice.

BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said it was established precedent to prorogue Parliament before a Queen's Speech, albeit generally more briefly, and rarely, if ever, at such a constitutionally charged time.

He said it was "Her Majesty's Government" in name only and it was her role to take the advice of her ministers, so she would prorogue Parliament if asked to.

While it is not possible to mount a legal challenge to the Queen's exercise of her personal prerogative powers, BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said a judicial review could be launched into the advice given to her by the prime minister - to determine whether that advice was lawful.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632

He really wants a no deal Brexit, right?

Isn't a no deal a bad thing for the UK too? Or is that a hard Brexit? I might be confusing the two.

Should probably post this for some context to those unfamiliar with British history.

State Opening of Parliament

Black Rod is best known for his or her part in the ceremonies surrounding the State Opening of Parliament and the Speech from the throne. He or she summons the Commons to attend the speech and leads them to the Lords. As part of the ritual, as Black Rod approaches the doors to the chamber of the House of Commons to make his summons, they are slammed in his or her face. This is to symbolize the Commons' independence of the Sovereign. Black Rod then strikes the door three times with the staff, and is then admitted and issues the summons of the monarch to attend.^[5]

This ritual is derived from the attempt by King Charles I to arrest the Five Members in 1642, in what was seen as a breach of the constitution. This and prior actions of the King led to the Civil War. After that incident, the House of Commons has maintained its right to question the right of the monarch's representative to enter their chamber, although they cannot bar them from entering with lawful authority.

Hopefully the Jeremy Corbyn doesn't behead her.

Oliver Cromwell was my favourite monarch.

So the Queen can only prorogue parliament if the PM advises?

Does the British Royalty have any real power at this point?

Good time as any to get a proper Constitution, any day now.

Isn't the royal family merely figureheads at this point?

@LJS9502_basic: @vl4d_l3nin: She still has a lot of power. The queen can fire the entire parliament. One time Australia shut down the Queen fired all the ministers. That's why they talked about it.

He just wants to sell the UK to US corporations, and having a deal with EU would get in the way of that dream.

@rmpumper: Why would having any deals with the US be affected by any deals with the EU?

Can't sell your country to US if you have already sold it to EU. /s

I believe those two are one and the same.

Let´s take the "closeure" first, last year it was 4 days later and a few days before now, so this is not unusual. The key here is to remember that the opposition wanted the normal summer holiday to be postponed because of the Brexit dealings.

Also, remind me again how many times the deal was voted down by the help from the very same who are now complaining about them getting what they asked for.

It´s funny to see the opposition and the pro-EU far-leftists claim that this is all Boris johnson when it´s, in fact, their own people who made this happen.

It´s like watching kids not understand that if you put your finger in the fire, it will hurt despite trying it 10 times before.

Stop with the far leftist nonsense, or should I call you an extreme rightwinger every time I quote you? Do I have to remind you that I am not a EU citizen...?

UK have probably had their share of issues with immigration after 2004, however some of those cheap countries aren't so cheap anymore.

Imo the vote 3 years ago should never have been about leaving or not, it should have been about leaving with a deal locked in (this could potentially be a no-deal brexit) or stay so they actually knew what both options were. UK now might face shortages of medicine among other things due too a underfunded and undermanned toll workers to deal with what is being imported.

It's not like the pro brexiters were united either....

Not calling you anything, I was referring to the actual people in the UK who are out to destroy democracy who happen to be mostly on the far-left.

Not really sure why you bring up immigration, that is beside the point here and have nothing to do with the normal "holiday" the parliament takes every year around this time. As to all the scare scenarios, most of them are just that out to scare you, of course, there won´t be a medicine shortage or food shortage. In fact, once Britan is out they can start fresh and negotiate with the EU on much better terms than now. Not to mention with the US and the rest of the world.

Also, sure the referendum 3 years ago was a dumb idea if you are a pro-EU person, but again this is irrelevant to the matter at hand here. Also, it did happen and you cannot toy with democracy and now the UK most sail out to sea like a majority wanted.

The parliament had 3 chances to get a pretty cosy soft deal with the EU but turned it down and are now mad because they have to face the consequences of those "no votes"

Doesn't democracy allow for differing opinions? You seem to be promoting facism.

That tune is almost as good as the finalised version. Easily rank it in their top 10.

Eh? Democrazy most certainly allows for different opinions so not sure what you are on about here?

But elections are not meant in a democracy to be "ups we didn´t like the outcome let´s try again" entities.

Just imagine if that was the case, I am sure you would be the first to line up after Trump's election to say "mulligan"

The hero we deserve.

So you're arguing for both sides now.

Ehmm no?

I am arguing that in a democracy the choice that is made sticks no matter how painful it is for some.

Same goes for the opposition who cries now after they turned down a deal 3 times and now are sad.

And we have not even talked about the EU who have said countless times no re-negotiations so it´s pretty clear what the opposition is doing, is staling until people agree on a 2nd referendum.

Yup, just fine. Where the Prime Minister gets to "prorogue" the Parliament with the acquiescence of the "Queen".

It even includes a mechanism to change it, the Constitution is awesome like that. Keep looking for those votes, maybe one day you get to repeal those amendments you don't like.

They just throw acid on each other, lots of toxic crusaders roaming the countryside:

Hey, hey, since when were the UK and America in competition for "least shitty country"? Let's try get along.

Why would they get a better deal once they are out of EU?

I brought up immigration since some countries saw a lot of it after the 2004 expansion. Not everyone is happy with that.

Because they won´t have Germans or French involvement or 27 others to agree with, who are out to get their own behind first. Why do you think French farmers are among the biggest recipients of subsidies from the EU. Also, UK actually provides more to the EU than it receives so that is one of those "scare tactics" the pro-EU use which is busted.

Oh, and let´s not forget the Belgium delegation who almost killed the Pan-Atlantic tade deal with Canada

So the UK, if they are smart about this, will be far better off flying solo.

Also, the biggest problem with immigration is not the huge massive asylum seekers, it´s the eastern European people abusing the EU´s free movement policies

realistically though, what's the timeline before another referendum like the one in 2016 can be held for the people to say "yeah, nevermind, **** brexit" ?

If the opposition manages to stall the oct deadline, then I would say it´s a 50/50 shot but it all depends.

But BJ is not playing this easy and hopefully, he will follow the will of the people and leave with or without a deal at oct.

I was more asking from a legal standpoint, how frequent can a referendum on this be called? so one is called in 2016 and a plurality of ppl vote to leave. is there a law or anything prohibiting another referendum from being called the next year?

what would be the earliest point in which the people could say "nevermind, we fucked that up, we want to take that back" ?

Instead they are facing one group with 440 million people or so... Oh and US? 320 million or so.

Good luck Boris Johnson

That's what I was referring to with 2004 expansion...

Mild pushing and raised voices, absolute mayhem.

Scuffles in Commons as John Bercow blocked from leaving his chair

A scuffle erupted around the speaker's chair as some opposition MPs held signs emblazoned with the word "silenced".

MPs showed their anger by holding up signs and blocking the speaker from leaving his chair as parliament was suspended last night.

The Commons is being prorogued for five weeks and will not be returning until 14 October - a move which has infuriated MPs hoping to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

During suspension proceedings in the early hours of this morning, MPs shouted "No!" when parliament was asked to prorogue.

A scuffle erupted around the speaker's chair as some opposition MPs held signs emblazoned with the word "silenced" and one tried to stop John Bercow from leaving for the prorogation ceremony in the Lords.

Mr Bercow, who is supposed to remain neutral but has often been outspoken throughout his tenure as speaker, said: "This is not a standard or normal prorogation.

"It's one of the longest for decades and it represents an act of executive fiat."

He was applauded by the opposition as Labour MPs chanted "shame on you!" at government ministers.

The ceremony in the House of Lords, where the royal assent was heard for the suspension of parliament, was boycotted by Labour MPs who stayed in the Commons to sing the Red Flag as members of the SNP sang Flower of Scotland.

MPs will not return to the Commons until little more than two weeks before the Brexit deadline on 31 October.

They had only been sitting for four days following their six-week summer break before parliament was suspended.

The government controversially ordered the suspension of parliament, which some MPs say was politically motivated to prevent scrutiny of the prime minister's Brexit plans.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn branded the prorogation "disgraceful" and said Boris Johnson "appears to be wanting to run away from questions".

But the government says it is the usual proceedings in the run-up to a Queen's Speech, which will be held when parliament returns and will set out policies and plans for the coming year.

According to House of Commons Library statistics, parliament has not been prorogued for longer than three weeks in the last 40 years.

The Queen formally approved the prorogation after three cabinet ministers travelled to Balmoral last month.

This week, the Court of Session will make a ruling on a case brought by a 70-strong group of cross-party MPs which argues that proroguing parliament is unlawful and unconstitutional.

A separate case brought by Remain campaigner Gina Miller and former prime minister Sir John Major to stop the parliamentary suspension was rejected, but the pair are in the process of appealing.

Isn't the suspension of the parliament in the court now?

Yup, it´s at the UK supreme court.

After a Scottish judge decided it was unlawful but not enough to warrant him to "turn it around".

Not everything has to go the equivalent of the supreme court...

It's an odd conclusion.

Probably an accurate one in this case though.

Sorry, I had a Freudian slip there.

I meant it was currently at the UK supreme court.

Oh well.

I expect it to be ruled not illegal.

We will have to see

Right now a Scottish court has ruled it unlawful but again not enough for it to be reversed. So it´s interesting to see what the supreme court does.

But this whole UK Brexit is a farce, it´s insane though that the opposition does not want an election if they are so sure the public would go for them and not BJ.

Because it closes down any action on made on major decision. It would force no-deal Brexit.

The law they passed already made a no-deal impossible at least from UK´s side.

It´s interesting to see what the EU will do because if they say no negoations it makes no sense to extend the deadline anymore.

@Jacanuk: France in particular have said they will veto another extension if we ask for one without any reason for it.

As they should, how long is this charade going to go on.

Yep, not sure what is going on within the British parliament but it's a farce that just won't end.

The funniest thing is that the Labour party know they can´t win an election and are too scared to give Boris an actual Majority. So they try to seize power without an actual election.

whats confusing about Labour is that they wont back remain, hes put himself in a position were both leavers and remainers arnt likely to vote for him, leavers will be swung to brexit party and remainers to lib dems.

When an election happens, labour could loose a lot of seats.

Yep, Labour with Corbyn have not played this as they should otherwise they would be in power right now.

But this whole Brexit is just a big joke. Either find a way to stay or leave and hopefully, the EU won´t give an extension.

The court has spoken

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/supreme-court-news-live-today-boris-johnson-brexit-ruling-parliament-prorogue-latest-corbyn-a9117696.html

Supreme Court news – live: Boris Johnson’s Brexit plan thrown into chaos as judges decide his government illegally shut down parliament.

The Supreme Court has ruled against Boris Johnson by declaring his government unlawfully shut down parliament for five weeks.

Lady Hale handed down the historic verdict, leading MPs and campaigners to demand that the prime minister recalls parliament immediately. Speaker John Bercow said the Commons must “convene without delay”.

Jeremy Corbyn called for Mr Johnson to “consider his position” following the landmark decision, and said he would be speaking with Speaker Bercow about returning as soon as possible.

In mobile so sorry for the poor formatting

First it was David, May, now Boris. Who's next? Corbyn? An outsider?

I feel like there are going to be more.

But I'm pretty sure its going to be someone worse than Boris because I'm seeing a not so good pattern here.