,
13 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Thread on prorogation. Prorogation is a normal practice, it signifies the end of the parliamentary session, which normally lasts less than 200 sitting days. The 2010-12 session lasted 295 days and was unprecedented. researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefi… 1/
Prorogation is followed by a Queen's Speech, where the Queen reads a speech drafted by the Government, which sets out their priorities in the next parliamentary session. It is absolutely best practice for new governments to do this soon after taking office. 2/
Prorogation has been used for political purposes in the past. Clement Attlee prorogued Parliament in order to cut short the session and thereby cheat the Parliament Act in order to force through his nationalisation programmes and prevent the Lords vetoing it 3/
The Parliament Act said that the Lords couldn't delay a bill for longer than three sessions in two years. So Attlee held a session lasting only 10 days in 1948 to do this. 4/
John Major prorogued Parliament for six weeks in 1997 following the Cash for Questions scandal and up until the General Election, cutting short the session after only 86 days, in order to keep the scandal from being hammered out in Parliament. 5/
Now Boris has been criticised for taking power from Theresa May without a mandate. I think this has some merit and argued as much when Brown took over from Blair - it may be constitutionally correct, but it's not what the people expected when they voted. 6/
The current parliamentary session is now over 340 days - the longest parliamentary session in nearly half a millennium. The last time Parliament sat this long was under Oliver Cromwell, who sent in soldiers to break it up. 7/
Boris's Government currently sits in a Parliament which is still in Theresa May's parliamentary session, still theoretically operating under Theresa May's Queen's Speech. It is entirely appropriate to prorogue now and have a clean slate and set out new priorities 8/
This said, the timings are clearly political and this has already been elucidated ad nauseam. However, deciding when the parliamentary session ends is a decision for the executive branch. They get to choose these timings and have chosen a convenient point. 9/
It is not a constitutional outrage, even if, for some, it is a political outrage. It is downright necessary for a new Queen's Speech in the very near future and it would be strange for a Government to have the power to choose timings and to wilfully choose an inapt window. 10/
Boris would also be well within his rights *not* to prorogue, if he so chose, and to explain that the longest parliamentary session in history should continue, despite the Government having changed and the Queen's Speech not applying, invoking Brexit as an emergency reason 11/
However, anti-Brexiteers or whatever you want to call them should accept that arguing this position makes them the ones pressing for an unusual constitutional situation to persist, not those in favour of prorogation. Burden of proof is on them to demonstrate it is necessary. 12/
Boris would actually be within his rights to prorogue until Nov 1st, but has chosen not to, which suggests he genuinely is still looking for some kind of deal and has left time to get it through parliament. This should actually offer heart to those concerned about no deal 13/
