MPs block an election again
For a second time the very MPs who have been accusing the government of shutting down democracy were the ones who prevented the House of Commons calling an election. Again most of them did so by abstaining rather than actively voting against an election but under the Fixed Term Parliament Act (FTPA) an abstention and a vote against are functionally identical.
Parliament has now been "prorogued" for five weeks and will return in mid-October after party conference season. If the MPs who protested about this really thought that the PM is a "dictator" or that this shutdown was comparable to the Reichstag Fire decrees (which gave Hitler the power to arrest opponents without trial, shut down political parties or newspapers, and take over local governments) they could and presumably would have called an election.
The best explanation I've seen for the outburst of hysteria was given in a piece published by Owen Polley on "The Article" website on 29th August - less than a fortnight ago but how long it seems -
"For Britain's sake, Brexit ultras on both sides need to calm down."
He suggests that opponents of a hard Brexit had been afraid that Boris Johnson might try to force a "no deal" Brexit by proroguing parliament until after 31st October, so that the UK would crash out without a deal and without parliament having any opportunity to do anything about it.
Wrongfooted by a less radical and shorter suspension which did not cover the period when parliament would have to be sitting to pass the legislation required to leave with a deal, Polley argues that Boris Johnson's opponents "unleashed the rhetoric which was prepared" had he proposed a longer suspension of parliament until November, a proposal which would indeed have forced through a "No Deal" outcome without parliamentary scrutiny and of which many of the criticisms which have been said would have been far more justified.
So where do we go from here? As far as I can see the best way to avoid a constitutional crisis and to deliver what the people voted for is to negotiate an acceptable exit deal with the EU which can pass the House of Commons.
Parliament has now been "prorogued" for five weeks and will return in mid-October after party conference season. If the MPs who protested about this really thought that the PM is a "dictator" or that this shutdown was comparable to the Reichstag Fire decrees (which gave Hitler the power to arrest opponents without trial, shut down political parties or newspapers, and take over local governments) they could and presumably would have called an election.
The best explanation I've seen for the outburst of hysteria was given in a piece published by Owen Polley on "The Article" website on 29th August - less than a fortnight ago but how long it seems -
"For Britain's sake, Brexit ultras on both sides need to calm down."
He suggests that opponents of a hard Brexit had been afraid that Boris Johnson might try to force a "no deal" Brexit by proroguing parliament until after 31st October, so that the UK would crash out without a deal and without parliament having any opportunity to do anything about it.
Wrongfooted by a less radical and shorter suspension which did not cover the period when parliament would have to be sitting to pass the legislation required to leave with a deal, Polley argues that Boris Johnson's opponents "unleashed the rhetoric which was prepared" had he proposed a longer suspension of parliament until November, a proposal which would indeed have forced through a "No Deal" outcome without parliamentary scrutiny and of which many of the criticisms which have been said would have been far more justified.
So where do we go from here? As far as I can see the best way to avoid a constitutional crisis and to deliver what the people voted for is to negotiate an acceptable exit deal with the EU which can pass the House of Commons.
Comments