• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

5 starting questions about prorogation

BobTheCoward

Banned
B
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
22,789
This most recent article about labour sent me into a spiral of questions appropriate for its own thread.


https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-abuse-of-power-in-living-memory-legal-advice

I get that the queen gets to decree prorogue and the prime minister can ask for one. But why does parliament allow the PM to request at will?

How is there a discussion about if this violates parliamentary sovereignty when the PM is a member of parliament? Isn't the fact the PM has the power to request prorogation an aspect of parliamentary sovereignty?

How can the minority request an injunction from court? The fact that the minority would get a judge to override the majority coalition and their leading MP seems anti sovereignty.

Is the PM's accountability to the majority party inadequate to address this?
 
This is a unique situation, the precedent is that a PM cannot force through legislation by proroguing, it wouldn't be particularly advantageous to do so anyway as if they lost a general election their successor would just reverse the decision. No one anticipated a situation where Parliament would paint itself into a corner and the country could face an irreversible change of this kind simply by waiting out the clock.

As a wider point the British Parliament is the product of an earlier age and a Minister's behaviour is to a large extent self governed. When the rules were made the idea that a gentleman's honour was insufficient to police their behaviour would have been a grave insult. The revolving door we've seen in recent years where ministers take a short break before returning to high office after being dismissed for lying, conflicts of interest, incompetence etc is the result of social change rather than design.
 
BobTheCoward said:
How is there a discussion about if this violates parliamentary sovereignty when the PM is a member of parliament?
Click to expand...

The PM is not a member of parliament. Parliament is the legislative branch. The PM is head of the executive branch.
 
The PM is an MP by convention, but it's only since the early 20th century that this has been the case. Theoretically, anybody who can carry the confidence of the house can be PM - which these days pretty much means the leader of the largest party in parliament.
 
Worm said:
The PM is an MP by convention, but it's only since the early 20th century that this has been the case. Theoretically, anybody who can carry the confidence of the house can be PM - which these days pretty much means the leader of the largest party in parliament.
Click to expand...

Can they PM that is an MP still vote in parliament?
 
Absolutely - they have all the normal responsibilities of an MP. Indeed, one could argue that the Prime Minister, as leader of their party, has more of a responsibility to vote - makes it much harder to whip other MPs if the leader is slacking off.

Of course, they have other responsibilities which require them to be absent for some votes.

The only MPs who generally don't vote are the Speaker, Depute Speakers, and the tellers (who count the votes)

Plus Sinn Fein who don't take up their seats.
 
Last edited:
Worm said:
The PM is an MP by convention, but it's only since the early 20th century that this has been the case. Theoretically, anybody who can carry the confidence of the house can be PM - which these days pretty much means the leader of the largest party in parliament.
Click to expand...


Even before that, the PM was a member of Parliament: the convention since the early 20th century is that they are a member of the Commons, before that they could sit in the House of Lords.
 
Ryokan said:
Got a source on that? Googling gives me nothing, except that it's common practice that the PM is an elected MP.
Click to expand...

'Elected' is the operative word. There is an unelected House of Lords which can no longer provide a PM.

ninja'd by Mojo :)
 
hmm. maybe need to distinguish between members of Parliament, and Members of Parliament (MP as a title).

Only those in the commons are MPs, while, as you say, there are also those who are part of the wider Parliament, such as Lords etc.
 
Worm said:
hmm. maybe need to distinguish between members of Parliament, and Members of Parliament (MP as a title).

Only those in the commons are MPs, while, as you say, there are also those who are part of the wider Parliament, such as Lords etc.
Click to expand...


The Lords is still part of the legislative branch.
 
Guardian piece is explaining to a UK audience who are more familiar with their system, here's a similar Atlantic piece I thought was good explaining to a more US audience:

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...-and-britains-constitutional-quagmire/597097/

I live in Canada, a parliamentary democracy (and the Queen is Queen of Canada as with many other commonwealth countries) but unlike the UK, Canada has a written constitution.
 
Worm said:
The PM is an MP by convention, but it's only since the early 20th century that this has been the case. Theoretically, anybody who can carry the confidence of the house can be PM - which these days pretty much means the leader of the largest party in parliament.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what current UK practice is, but it may be possible to have a PM that isn’t an MP when there is a change in leadership for the ruling party and the new leader isn’t currently an MP.
 
epeeist said:
Guardian piece is explaining to a UK audience who are more familiar with their system, here's a similar Atlantic piece I thought was good explaining to a more US audience:

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...-and-britains-constitutional-quagmire/597097/

I live in Canada, a parliamentary democracy (and the Queen is Queen of Canada as with many other commonwealth countries) but unlike the UK, Canada has a written constitution.
Click to expand...

Even the US constitution more or less just mimicked English common law of the period. A constitution is more important when you don’t have precedent to fall back on or simply want to repatriate that precedent so you are appealing to precedent in what are now completely separate countries.
 
epeeist said:
Guardian piece is explaining to a UK audience who are more familiar with their system, here's a similar Atlantic piece I thought was good explaining to a more US audience:

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...-and-britains-constitutional-quagmire/597097/

I live in Canada, a parliamentary democracy (and the Queen is Queen of Canada as with many other commonwealth countries) but unlike the UK, Canada has a written constitution.
Click to expand...

The UK’s constitution is written down too, but it’s not a single stand-alone document.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom