"What the fuck is going on?"
This is a direct quote that I was greeted with when I entered the office of my local MP in Portcullis House this Tuesday. I'm pretty sure that after this week's parliamentary happenings, everyone else is feeling the same way about politics.
As I've been doing some work experience for my local MP this week, I feel honour bound to try to bring some clarity to what is going on in Parliament. Politics being hard to follow is no excuse to not listen, it literally effects every part of our daily lives.
The following are my best efforts to outline and explain the gritty details, but my best is probably not entirely correct, as it is so complicated and confusing that I'm not even sure that MPs know what's going on. Anyway, let's get into it.
28th August: Boris Johnson decided to prorogue parliament.
What is proroguing?
Proroguing is a motion where the government is entitled to shut down parliament early, bringing the parliamentary session to an end. All bills (draft forms of legislation) pending will not become law, including the EU Withdrawal Agreement.
On 28th August, the Privy Council met and the Queen approved prorogation, meaning Parliament would shut on 9th September for 5 weeks (or so he thought).
Why did he do it?
By shutting parliament down, Johnson intended to leave the EU by 31st October with very little parliamentary opposition.
Is it legal?
It is technically legal and Prime Ministers are entitled to enact it. However, in this case, it has been deemed undemocratic by many because of being manipulated for political ends .
Many protestors argue that it is undemocratic because our country runs on representative democracy (MPs are elected to represent their constituency). To prevent them from speaking is to effectively prevent the voice of their electorate from being heard. Therefore, whilst legal, many have cited it as highly undemocratic and consequently unconstitutional. The Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, accused it of being “unconstitutional and improper” and Rory Stewart (MP) said it would be illegal if they did it “for the express purpose of getting [no deal] through”.
Has it ever happened before?
The last time prorogation was used was in 1948. Atlee's government prorogued in order to pass the Parliament Bill (which reduced the power of the House of Lords) which, perhaps not surprisingly, encountered considerable opposition in the Lords.
Options to challenge Prorogation?
1. Hijack government legislation To prevent leaving with a no deal, MPs could add a clause demanding that the PM has to ask for an extension on any legislation brought to them by the government. But to avoid this, the government has specifically outlined that they would not introduce any legislation before 31st.
2. Take control of Parliament Timetabling A way in which Parliament could force new legislation through is by taking control of the parliamentary timetabling. To do so, the Speaker would have to grant an emergency debate, which is exactly what happened (see 3rdSeptember).
3. Vote of No Confidence A vote of no confidence is where MPs vote on whether they have confidence in the sitting government. If half of MPs back it, essentially saying that the government is terrible, there are 14 days to form a new government. If half of MPs back this newly formed government, then this would be our new executive. Boris Johnson made the emergency debate (on whether parliament could take control of the timetable) a vote of confidence within his party. Tory MPs who voted against the government were expressing a lack of confidence in government.
2nd September: Snap Election?
It was rumoured that Bo Jo would be looking to call a snap election. To do that, according to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, he needed the support of 2/3rds of MPs.However, many MPs were hesitant to back a snap election (despite Labour calling for one for the last two years) because it would have given the government huge power. By calling an election, parliament is automatically dissolved and the Government controls timetable. In theory, Boris Johnson could have dissolved parliament for an election and then moved the date of the election until after 31st October so that he could leave the EU without a deal and without any parliamentary opposition.
3rd September: SO24 motion was brought to John Bercow
SO24 stands for Standing Order 24 (standing orders are motions that run parliament but are rarely used) and was a motion for an emergency debate in which MPs would vote to take control of the parliamentary timetable. This had to be approved by the Speaker, John Bercow. He granted the motion at 12pm.
Shortly before the debate, MP Philip Lee walked across the chamber from the Conservatives to sit with the Liberal Democrats. This represented not only his defection from the Tories, but also the loss of the government’s majority.
The MPs supported the standing order by majority of 27 (301 v 328). The 21 Tories who voted with the opposition had the Tory whip removed. This means that they were cast out of the party, including some senior figures such as former Chancellor Philip Hammond, Sir Nicholas Soames (Winston Churchill’s grandson) and the longest serving MP, Ken Clarke.
After defeat, Bo Jo said he’d table a vote to hold a snap election.
4th September: A lot happened
The government’s spending review was released, which saw an all-round increase in spending. This was highly unusual, as the Tories have imposed austerity (smaller governmental budgets and lower taxes) for the last decade. However, the spending report prompted feelings that the Tories were throwing money around and ‘ending austerity’ in an effort to gain votes in a potential election.
The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill or the Benn Bill (introduced by MP Hilary Benn) is the bill that effectively makes leaving the EU without a deal illegal. If passed, Boris Johnson would be forced to ask for an extension from EU for 31stJanuary 2020, as a deal before 31st October is unlikely. The bill was debated in the House of Commons and passed: 327-299. The next step was for it to passed in the House of Lords, and so it was sent there.
After the passing of the Benn Bill in the HOC, they debated the Government’s motion for a snap election. It was defeated due to not enough MPs voting, with 298 yes and 56 no. The Fixed Term Parliament Act requires backing of 2/3 MPs (434) and therefore the Government had no hope of winning this. This was the third major vote that Boris Johnson lost as Prime Minister, meaning that he has yet to win a vote whilst in Government.
Jo Johnson, Boris Johnson’s younger brother and MP for Orpington resigned from office. His leaving statement said that he was “torn between family loyalty and the national interest”. Many have likened this move to the Miliband Brothers and called it a stab in the back, as Jo is implying that his brother does not have the national interest in mind.
6th September: Benn Bill passed
The House of Lords debated the Benn Bill but was met with serious filibustering. Filibustering is where opposition to legislation hold the floor by talking for as long as possible, so to delay and potentially prevent the passing of a bill. The filibusters in the Lords gave up in the early hours of the morning, when the Government admitted defeat on the bill. After that the Lords swiftly passed it. The final stage for the bill before it becomes law is royal assent, where the Queen signs it into law. This will be done on Monday.
Opposition parties agreed not to support an election until anti-no deal legislation has passed.
7th September
Amber Rudd, Work and Pensions Secretary, resigned for government. She stated that she could not "stand by" while "loyal moderate Conservatives are expelled". She has also stated that’s she left because she could not see any preparation being done by the government for a proposal for a deal with the EU. Instead, she says there is only focus on a no deal.
9th September
The spokesperson for 10 Downing St confirmed that it will not seek an extension from the EU despite the legislation legally requiring this will get a Royal Assent the same day. The government wants to convince MPs to hold a general election instead.
As this will soon be against the law, we will have to see if court intervention is necessary.
Is a no deal Brexit still possible despite new legislation?
Yes, in theory, but very unlikely. It could happen if MPs voted in favour of leaving without a deal, which would only happen in extreme circumstances because it would undo everything they’ve just pushed through.
Another possibility is if an election happens. If a snap election happens before 31st October and results in the Tories gaining a larger majority and mandate, the Government could try to repeal and scrap the Benn Bill. They would then be legally allowed to leave the EU without a deal. Therefore, this whole attempt to tie the hands of the PM could have proved to be a waste of time.
Could the government ignore the law?
Parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional principle which means that the Government has to listen to legislation enacted by parliament. Once the bill becomes law, there are clear and binding obligations on the Prime Minister regarding no deal and he will be forced to seek an extension. If Boris Johnson refuses to go to the EU for an extension or ignores the legislation (for example), an alternative government would likely be formed after votes of confidence. If this still fails, the will of Parliament would be upheld in courts in a legal procedure.
Election (when/if it happens)
An election in the near future seems increasingly likely, however the question is when? For the EU to give an extension they would want to see something substantive change. This suggests either another referendum or a general election.
Boris Johnson is calling for an election before 31st October in the hope of gaining a larger mandate (important because he, as the leader of the Tories, has never faced an election). His campaign will most likely centre around the need for a mandate so that he can negotiate a better deal with the EU to leave or leave with no deal if necessary. His selling point will be that he will make sure we leave no matter what. This appeals to hard Brexiteers and everyone else who is just fed up with Brexit.
This leaves Corbyn in a difficult position. The election will most likely be posed as a straight forward choice on Brexit, as a question of ‘do you want to honour the result of the referendum’. Corbyn will then be on the defensive and commit to ‘no’. On top of that, Labour will have to compete for votes with the LibDems. He will most likely emphasise that First Past the Post ensures a two horse race and therefore a vote for anyone except the Tories or Labour is a wasted vote. On the other hand, the 2017 election was similarly phrased as a choice on Brexit, yet Labour did well, as domestic politics often overwhelm national. However, unlike the 2017 election, we finally have something far more tangible and specific on Brexit to vote on.
Why are we in this mess?
A short answer: the Fixed Term Parliament Act (2011).
It is generally accepted to be just plain bad law, made to keep Nick Clegg happy in the coalition government.
Before 2011, the Prime Minister held the enormous power of being able to decide when and whether to call an election. Naturally, it was regularly abused for political gain. The FTPA curtails the PM’s ability by demanding that a general election is held at least every five years and that an election must be voted for by at least 2/3s of MPs.
However, what this law did not foresee was the context of a minority government and a parliament that does not want an election. We have a constitutional system where the relationship between electors, the executive and parliament relies on the notion that the executive holds the HOC and regular elections. When you change the rules of the constitution, you have to think about rejigging the constitution itself to suit our contemporary context. Our constitution depends on having a majority government and yet we are seeing this less and less, and so our constitution must be amended, not legislation.
The FTPA was not passed as a rigorous check on the executive (otherwise the Tories would not have allowed it), but to pacify Clegg who feared that the Tories would call for an election when it suited them, in order to get rid of the LibDems in the government.
Another issue with politics nowadays, is that it has turned into a game of constraining the other party. PMQs have been reduced into a game of name-calling and point-scoring. Politics needs to evolve to be a place where something can actually get done, rather than the constant cycle of slating others and convenient truths. When might that happen?