Talk:Prorogation in the United Kingdom

Previous prorogation(s)
Sir John Major suggested, during an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, on 10 July, that ".. nobody has done that since King Charles II in the 1640s and it didn't end well for him". I thought he was getting his Charlies mixed up there. But I see that Charles I of England says this: "In January 1629, Charles opened the second session of the English Parliament, which had been prorogued in June 1628, with a moderate speech on the tonnage and poundage issue." Should this be added to the article, perhaps with a bit more detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On John Major's controversial use of prorogation in 1997, see "Major denies sleaze report cover-up". Qexigator (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, the deep (blue) irony of it all. I'm not so sure Tarzan would be quite so keen to support "the new leader" this time round. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Impartiality of chosen language
Given the political climate I think we need to be particularly careful about the exact words chosen to describe historic events here. I wonder if the way in which we are presenting prorogation isn't a little misleading to the layman reader. For example John Major "controversially prorogued parliament" is perhaps not quite as impartial (and perhaps not even as correct) as stating John Major "called a general election which had the effect of proroguing parliament". We could then follow it up with "this had the effect of avoiding parliamentary debate of the Parliamentary Commissioner's report on the cash-for-questions affair." The latter sounds more impartial to me but I won't make the edit until others agree or disagree. Munchingfoo (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be better, but still not quite right: because the Commissioner's report on the cash-for-questions affair wasn't published until 4th July. That's more than two months after the general election (1st May) and almost two months after Parliament reassembled (7th May).  So the prorogation didn't have the effect of avoiding parliamentary debate of the report.  Nor do we know (unless someone can show otherwise) that that was the intention of the prorogation).  Also, a prorogation almost always precedes a dissolution, and a dissolution was necessary due to the general election being called.  The debate then is whether Parliament was prorogued unnecessarily early and why. 22:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.11.34 (talk)
 * Unless my memory is playing tricks with me, I recall that when Parliament was dissolved there was a good deal of criticism of the unusually long period, in part because this would prevent criticism of cash-for-questions (I dare say the report might have been published earlier if Parliament had still been sitting, whereas once Blair had won it was only of historical interest). I also recall Simon Hughes asking a long rambly question, which may well have been about this, and the then Speaker Betty Boothroyd shouting at him to "spit it out" so that they could vote and be done with it. If somebody wants to check Hansard, be my guestPaulturtle (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hughes is here on facebook - apparently it was on 18 March 1997 - and Hughes says that the report would be ready next week. To be fair to Hughes, it was more a case of struggling to be heard over Tory barracking than him rambling. But this idea that it "wasn't published until July", whilst doubtless true, is a red herring.Paulturtle (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1063226460354599

2019 Prorogation
Prior to the statement that on September 11, the Court of Session ruled (on appeal that) the prorogation was unlawful, it must be added that on September 4, Lord Doherty had ruled in the same court that there had been no contravention of the rule of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.252.29 (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The article states "... Johnson's prorogation would add around four days to the parliamentary break." . To my knowledge, this is not true: recess due to party conferences is three weeks, Johnson's prorogation is more than five weeks. Therefore, should rather be "... Johnson's prorogation would add around two weeks to the parliamentary break.". In my opinion, this is especially important since the supreme court ruled that the prorogation was unlawful because of its extensive length beyond the usual 4-5 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.30.233 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 background
Rather than continuing to revert each other, please discuss the background section for the 2019 prorogation here. Personally, I think the content is - on the whole - worth keeping, but it needs reducing to probably just the one paragraph that summarises the fact there were discussions about prorogation for some time beforehand. Sam Walton (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an article about prorogation in general, and not about Brexit or speculation about prorogations or prorogation threats that never actually came to be. Sure we should mention the Johnson government prorogation, but one short paragraph will suffice, and from a neutral POV - without the editorialising and without any particular spin. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems perfectly clear that this article should mention what the reliable sources have mentioned, which is that the effect of the 2019 prorogation is to diminish the time in which Parliament could avoid a no-deal Brexit. Since we follow the reliable sources, that seems like a no-brainer. Neutralitytalk 18:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, but that isn't the only thing the reliable sources have mentioned, so we should not give that particular effect undue weight by qualifying the opening senence with it alone. A balanced supplementary sentence, including it along with other reliably sourced commentary, would do the job. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One must question what we refer to as 'reliable' with regards to this particular topic. As many of you know, it is no secret that the vast majority of media corporations including ones cited in this section (e.g. The Guardian) have an inherent political bias. In these cases it may be necessary to ratify any information used via a secondary source. The one exception to this would be the BBC, who are legally obligated to remain impartial. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "...The impartiality of the corporation’s news output has come under attack from all sides in recent years, especially following the Brexit referendum....", and see Criticism of the BBC. Qexigator (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Challenges to 2019 prorogation.
Concerning the coming 2019 prorogation, am I reading this article correctly? Is there actually an attempt being made to strip the monarch of the ability to prorogue parliament? GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case being taken by Gina Miller and Sir John Major: "It is not possible to mount a legal challenge to the Queen's approval of the suspension - known as prorogation - which was confirmed on Wednesday. But Sir John and Ms Miller believe they can legally challenge the advice the Queen's prime minister gives her.".   The article wording may need to be tweaked slightly to reflect the up-to-date position now that prorogation has been agreed.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 Street protests
Hello, I was going to write a sub-section just about the grassroots opposition to prorogation. How do others think this would best fit into the article? Jonjonjohny (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is for Prorogation in general, I don't think a sub-section is necessary nor right in this circumstance. Personally I think the section regarding the 2019 Prorogation is already too big when compared with the others listed. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Perhaps all of the opposition could be split into a new article of "2019 Opposition to the prorogation of parliament"? Jonjonjohny (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a big (though not total) overlap between those protesting against prorogation, and those opposed to Brexit, and/or opposed to a "no deal" Brexit in particular. It is not always a simple matter to differentiate between them.  We have an article - Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom - and one option might be to cover all the related protests there, with a link back to this article.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Split discussion
The current section might be getting a bit too unwieldy in comparison to the rest of the article, becoming longer than the 1831 section. Furthermore, given the upcoming Supreme Court case next Tuesday, and the government's heel-dragging regarding the EU(W)(2)A, there is a case to be made that the burgeoning constitutional drama/crisis should really get its own article. Thoughts? Sceptre (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: I've created a skeleton draft if other editors want to help work on it. Sceptre (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Lots could be written about this issue, especially as it continues to transpire. --krimin_killr21(talk) 16:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree: I must admit I was thinking about this earlier when the news broke about the Scottish judgement. Because of that, and other recent happenings, these are already unprecedented events that will have long-lasting implications for the UK and its legislature. History will no doubt have much to say on this episode too. This is Paul (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * well said, . --Sm8900 (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The length is becoming a bit much, and it is clearly only going to expand further from here onwards. best split to separate article, with a few lines in brief summary here. --ERAGON (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's longer than any other paragraph already (due to the abundance of available sources), so it's already so large that it's questionable whether or not that much weight is due for one subsection of an article about prorogation itself. The best option is to have a standalone article.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 01:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: I have already edited the draft to add some text. you can view it at this link: Draft:2019 British prorogation controversy. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: I've moved the article into main space in response to the quick and unanimous response, but we can continue discussing the merits of the split if you all so want. Sceptre (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me too. Bondegezou (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Other prorogations
The article professes to include 'notable' prorogations, but doesn't say how it decides what is notable. Would there be scope to include other prorogations? Two examples were mentioned in the deliberations of the recent court case. The ones in 1914 and 1930.

From CASE FOR THE PRIME MINISTER AND ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (from the Supreme Court documents), we have:
 * (1) On 18 September 1914, shortly after the outbreak of the First World War, Parliament was prorogued until 27 October, with the King’s Speech on prorogation noting that the circumstances “call for action not speech.” On 16 October 1914, Parliament was further prorogued by proclamation until 11 November 1914. In total, Parliament was prorogued for a period of 53 calendar days during wartime.
 * (2) On 1 August 1930, Parliament was prorogued until 28 October, a period of 87 days. This was during the onset of the Great Depression following the 1929 Wall Street Crash and when the then government of James Ramsay MacDonald did not command a majority in the House of Commons. They even helpfully give sources (Hansard and London Gazette: "Hansard, 18 September 1914, vol. 66, col. 1018; London Gazette, 16 October 1914, Issue 28940, p.8241." for 1914 and "Lords Hansard, 1 August 1930, vol. 78, col. 1216." for 1930).

What would be the best way to include those? And do we cite direct to Hansard or do we also need to include the fact that they were mentioned in the court case to show that others have commented on them? (Also, as far as I can tell, parliament was not prorogued during the Second World War.) Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * We'd need a source, but I suspect part of the reason for the 1914 prorogation was to avoid questioning about Ireland. For those who aren't aware, Ireland was on the verge of civil war in 1914, with Home Rule having been held up for 2 years (as the Lords then had the power to do). The Six Counties (now Northern Ireland) had been offered a 6-year optout, but not the full optout they and the Tories were demanding. Asquith rushed IHR into law, along with another Act suspending it for the duration of war (then expected to only last a few months), but with the status of Ulster still unresolved. The Tories were so furious that Bonar Law staged a walkout from the Chamber.Paulturtle (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Also there was a prorogation in the autumn of 1901, I think. WOuld be good to know why that happened as well.Paulturtle (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Recall
Our article claims that (emphasis added)

The source given is the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords 2017, para 2.13. However, the Companion states that (emphasis added)

The change of wording on our part seems potentially problematic because the terms "recalled" and "summoned" are apparently, at least for some commentators, not interchangeable in this context. See eg the House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 8589 (11th June 2019), which specifically states on p 7 that (emphasis added)

(while nonetheless acknowledging that "certain statutes require Parliament to meet notwithstanding the fact it may be adjourned or prorogued", giving the example of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, s 28).

Unfortunately, I lack sufficient knowledge of UK constitutional law to make any changes myself. — Pajz (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"Notable Prorogations"
In the "notable prorogations" section, there is a subsection dealing with Johnson 2019. But this was *not* a prorogation. The SC has unanimously said that no such prorogation ever took place. The section should be renamed "Notable Prorogations (Real or Purported)", and the fictional nature of the 2019 "prorogation" must be given greater prominence. Also, the biased language in the section on Major 1997 is still present. It is simply untrue that prorogation in 1997 avoided debate on the cash-for-questions report; the report hadn't yet been published, and wasn't published until after prorogation was over and a new parliament assembled. 18:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.11.34 (talk)

"Brexit Withdrawal"
What on earth does the phrase "Brexit Withdrawal" mean? Does it mean withdrawal from the EU, or does it mean withdrawal from/of Brexit, i.e. remaining in the EU? The heading seems biased, since the justices clearly stated they were not ruling against Brexit nor trying to prevent it in any way whatsoever.10:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.171.180 (talk)