What did and didn't happen this week.

If I believed for one moment that this week's prorogation of parliament was an attempt to do what Boris Johnson is being accused of - force through a "no deal" Brexit and shut off any possibility of a democratic decision implementing any other outcome, including Brexit with a deal - I would be very worried about such a course of action and would be strongly arguing against it through private party channels.

During the Conservative leadership election the idea of shutting down parliament was mooted, and strongly opposed by almost all the other candidates (most of whom are now serving in the government) but what I thought was being suggested then is not what was announced this week.

If an attempt had been made to suspend parliament from the coming week until after 31st October, so that a "no deal" brexit happened by default, the criticisms which were made of the idea during the leadership election and far more of the criticisms which have been aimed at the government this week would have been applicable and justified. But given that

1. Parliament will still be sitting for the coming week and some of the next during which time there could and possibly will be an attempt to "no confidence" the government or bar a "no deal" Brexit, and 
2. Parliament will be back in place before the EU Council summit at which any deal might be agreed, so there is no diminution of the narrow window between 17th October and 31st October to pass any deal which is agreed into law, 

I think it is credible to argue that the prerogation of parliament is a defensive measure designed to make it harder for opponents of Brexit to try to overturn the results of the referendum, not an attempt to make "no deal" inevitable.

What happened this week was not unconstitutional. It wasn't fascism. It wasn't a coup. It wasn't the abolition of parliamentary democracy. It was nothing like the Reichstag fire decree. And those people who suggested that it was any of those things really need to calm down.


Earlier today I quoted and linked to an article by Paul Goodman, Editor of Conservative Home who was arguing that Boris Johnson's gameplan is to leave the EU with a deal if he can possibly get one which he can sell to parliament. He is deadly serious about leaving with no deal if the EU does not offer a deal which he can sell, but Goodman believes -  as do I - that the Prime Minister's statement that his preferred option is to leave with a deal is the truth.

Dan Hodges makes a similar argument here.

There is still the possibility of a deal if the EU really wants one and if parliament does not, intentionally or otherwise, sabotage the government's negotiating position,

I think there are people in Brussels who want a deal. The chance that we can get one  is probably much closer to fifty:fifty than millions to one in favour, but it is not zero. And I believe it is more likely to happen if parliament does not tie the government's hands this week.

Many years ago, before I was born, a prominent Labour politician told the Labour party conference:

"If you carry this resolution and follow out all its implications and do not run away from it you will send a Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be, naked into the conference chamber … 
You call that statesmanship? I call it an emotional spasm."

Nye Bevan was talking, of course, about unilateral nuclear disarmament. But I believe his comments are equally applicable to any restrictions which parliament may try to put on the government this week.

I believe our PM wants a deal. There may be a chance, however slim, that he can get one. I would plead with our MPs not to pass anything this week which might undermine that chance.