Thread by @uk_domain_names

"If the new prime minister sought to avoid a new session, and prorogued immediately upon entering Downing Street at the end of July, the country would be without a parliament for three months." Eek! Gulp! But it's not illegal, folks! theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

Official HOC briefing: "Prorogation being a prerogative power, there is no obvious legal mechanism by which Parliament could prevent its exercise otherwise than by passing legislation to constrain it." 🤔
researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefi…

When you look at the full document (of which the above is only a summary) you'll see there are countless wrinkles to prorogation. For instance, section 2.2 hints at the magnitude of the constitutional crisis that may be unleashed...
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-…

One massive wrinkle is hidden in 2.3: invocation of the Civil Contingency Act 2004 might in theory un-prorogue Parliament, ie start it up again. Now that power can be wielded by Ministers in exceptional circumstances. Could one such be "to see off the actions of a rogue PM"?

Quite honestly I don't know. But let's follow the slippery slope...

IF Ministers could invoke the CCA 2004 to cancel prorogation, but PM was hellbent on maintaining prorogation, what happens if the PM fires every Minister? Ministerial positions, after all, are in the PM's gift!

This may seem abstract. It certainly seems absurd. But when you read through the document carefully, two things emerge:
- prorogation is the nuclear option when it comes to Brexit but legally it's possible.
- to start up Parliament again if you're not the PM is almost impossible.

Let's hope we have someone rational in charge, eh!

Note: this situation is a bit like the one the US faces with Trump: there are all sorts of problematic powers a President has in theory, but until now no President sought to exercise them, so it was OK.

Prorogation has been used for some procedure tricks (1948), to bury bad news (1997) and so on, but hundreds and hundreds of years have passed since it was last wielded like a weapon. So Parliament had pretty much forgotten that the political doomsday device was still there.

But now it looks like the incoming PM could blow the dust off it, give it a quick tune-up and unleash it.

Chilling.

Even wilder stuff: a certain school of legal thought suggests that the EU might be able to extend Article 50 unilaterally, delaying Brexit, even if the UK did not request an extension. While it would be a very *very* hard decision, might they rescue us from a rogue PM that way?

I'm talking about a situation where Parliament hasn't sat for weeks (and is clearly being prevented from doing so by the PM despite the stated wishes of MPs), millions are on the street daily, etc. etc.

Which would be worse from the EU's POV? Let Brexit happen, or delay it?

Because here's the only tiny silver lining about Prorogation: Parliament needs to sit at least every 6 months or so to authorise the money needed for the UK to function. If the money runs out, everything paid for by the state stops. Everything.

And that's a recipe for civil war.

Ok, now that we've established we're in the realms of the very, very, unlikely, let's explore one last out-there idea: what would happen if 2/3 of all MPs banded together via social media and then marched together to Buckingham Palace to "prove" to the Queen they had the numbers?

Officially, ie procedurally, that would be a meaningless gesture. If Parliament isn't sitting you can't hold a VONC. But if MPs demonstrated so publicly that they had the numbers to force a GE... well, one of the powers held by the Queen is to dissolve Parliament for GEs.